Talk:Abigail Martin

Moronic fail by Wikipedia admins

• This deletion/indefinite redirect just shows a moronic fail on the part of Wikipedia admins. Some admins here must really hate her for one reason or another, because she's quite notable and google-able and has a large following on the internet.
• If you look at the discussion page here, the discussion is pretty one-sided. The "consensus" was that Abby isn't notable enough because most of the sources cited in the article were not mainstream corporate media sources.
• Abby is definitely more notable (and more widely known on the internet) than her former colleague on RT, Alyona Minkovski. Why wasn't her article nominated instead even though it's a smaller article with even less reliable sources? Is it because she works for Huffington Post, which is a much more "mainstream" (and therefore inifnitely more reliable) corporate source?
• Is there any way we can post complaints about admins? There's over 1400 of you guys so I don't believe you can all be this dumb. InMooseWeTrust (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

you appear to be very confused about how Wikipedia works.

Admins are just people with mops who can make the technical changes that the community has determined are appropriate – An admin has evaluated that the community has twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin (2nd nomination) determined that there have not been provided sufficient content about the subject by reliably published third party sources to support a stand alone article. Another admin has enforced that decision by locking the article as a redirect when individuals multiple times went against the previously established decisions by disruptively recreating the article.

Should additional third party coverage of the subject be found, the previous decision to redirect can be reviewed by the process outlined at WP:DRV.

(I would also suggest that you read WP:WAX) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@InMooseWeTrust: Hi, dumb admin here. All previous versions of the article are available via the article's history. Instead of whining and drafting diatribes, fix it. User Viriditas shares a viewpoint similar to yours and has started a sandbox at User:Viriditas/Abby Martin if you would like to put your money where your mouth is. -- John Reaves 14:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And be aware that petty professional jealousies played out by proxies on Wikipedia are not good for anyone's professional image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How am I supposed to fix it if I'm apparently not allowed to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by InMooseWeTrust (talk • contribs)

You are allowed to. Most users here (well, maybe not most unfortunately) do not seek to indiscriminately exclude content from the encyclopedia. Content simply needs to adhere to our myriad policies and guidelines which often dictate the deletion of content that some users feel to be needed. The various deletion discussions address enumerate these concerns. If these concerns are addressed and good article is produced, it can be reinstated. I believe this is usually done through deletion review. I, for one, have attempted to facilitate this by undeleting the previously deleted revisions to provide material for the article. -- John Reaves 16:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@InMooseWeTrust: As pointed out, you can bring more sources and open the review of the deletion at WP:DRV or you can ask @Viriditas: if they want to use their sandbox version as an open drafting space. If they would rather keep it as a private drafting space, you can create a sandbox of your own to work on creating a better article. You just cannot do it in live article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still kind of new to wiki, what's the process for getting it reviewed after the new version is completed? I spent some time researching my argument for re-creation of this page, at it seems unfair to me that it was deleted. It looks like this issue might be getting resolved, but I will post my arguments below nevertheless. -- 7partparadigm ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation says the following om when it is ready to be reviewed:Please copy paste the following bold text to the top of your submission: {{subst:submit}} --Super Goku V (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed quite a bit of information on this topic over the last couple of hours since seeing about this deletion on Martin's program this morning. I will agree that the article itself is a stub of an biographical page and had some very lousy links, but I feel that this alone does not provide grounds for page deletion or a permanent redirect for Abby Martin – but, rather, merely an update of the page, so that it is (stub or not), has better sources. After reviewing Wikipedia:Notability, I would say that the article in its pre-deletion form (per Unhappy idealist, edit made on 03:48 13 January, 2014) did meet the following criteria: Significant coverage (No further research is necessary to understand the topic after reading the Martin article), and Presumed (Martin seems to me to be a person who has enough notoriety to be article-worthy). One of the arguments made on the most recent deletion discussion was referring to the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information rule, which is a good rule, but does not apply in this case. It is hard to find ratings for Martin's show or RT on the open web, but their facebook pages have 1.2M and 41K fans respectively, which I think would make her a candidate (if somewhat weak) for a bio page. Back to the rules: the Martin article, I feel, did not meet the following criteria: Sources, Reliable, and Independence (sources were limited to her personal website, her facebook page, and a shaky secondary source about not being included in wiki enough). But these are fixable problems. This issue makes wikipedia look like we are trying to politically discriminate against a edgy talk show, and if the "topic" has the ability to broadcast on her show to (what I would assume) would be thousands of daily viewers in complaint that her page was deleted, then she is probably noteworthy enough to have a page about her. I am posting the above commentary on both your page, John Reaves, the admin who banned the page, and on the re-dir article's talk page. I ask you, John Reaves, what do you feel would be a reasonable change that could be made to this article to make it better fit the general Notability Guidelines? What steps can be taken for a re-evaluation of this article's deletion on the grounds that better citations can be added, as it appears that discussion on this topic has finalized. Thanks for your time. -- 7partparadigm ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You have misplaced the "significant coverage" - the significant coverage is not the Wikipedia article content, but significant content in reliable third party sources about the subject of the proposed Wikipedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And a belief that the results here are a result of "discrimination" in the deletion discussion is only possible if you do not look at the hundreds of articles that are deleted every week. The only thing they have in common is that reliable third parties have not covered them. The lack of coverage is not because the subject is "edgy liberal" - it applies equally to "dull run of the mill" and "reactionary conservative" and "loopy nonsensical". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia MORE famous? What irony!

I agree this is ridiculous - after just watching a news story about Abby Martin's "ban" that makes Wikipedia out to be mob rule. I'm a long time user and know the rule in question. But here is a case where the ban is actually making Wikipedia MORE famous; or infamous, to the point it could be a good spoof on Uncyclopedia. I voted KEEP on the previous deletion thread. I suggest a Wikipedia search count on "Abby Martin" and then see how many people are disappointed when they look here. :Just checked out User:Viriditas/Abby Martin and it looks fine. Cheers!!!--Rickbrown9 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The current proposed version for review is located at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abby_Martin. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

New media coverage after critizising Russia on RT for Crimea crisis

There's a ton of new media coverage after her comments seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZolXrjGIBJs so you may want to reconsider the deletion - once again... Neuhaus (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Where? Please give some links to 3rd party (non RT) media references. Perhaps those references can be added to the current version located HERE. This topic has been spoofed here.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How about these, the current top three results for her name on Bing: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/04/russia-today-abby-martin-video_n_4894981.html, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573136/Russian-TV-anchor-says-countrys-behaviour-Ukraine-wrong-live-broadcast-sent-Crimea-bosses.html, http://o.canada.com/news/rts-abby-martin-speaks-out-against-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ John Firth (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

the article has also been created and deleted and recreated at Draft:Abby Martin. That version has a link to NBC coverage so it is not just blogs and tabloids [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have worked on the article about Abby Martin's Breaking the Set in the last few hours. It is surely liable to be folded into the RT article at some point as Martin's outburst on the Crimea is its main claim to notability at the moment. As many available sources don't mention the program title, it is not possible to make use of them in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please merge all of this and whatever else into the Draft:Abby Martin article. We really don't need a separate article on Breaking the Set at this point. It was created because the redirect for Abby Martin was protected from editing, until today. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abby Martin

The usage of Abby Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Draft talk:Abby Martin -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abby Martin (journalist) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abby Martin (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)