Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Roth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Roth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe she passes WP:CREATIVE. The article claims that she was part of a team that won a Pulitzer prize. The reference actually say that the LA Times won the prize for spot new reporting (not photography). Other than links to news stories where they use her pictures, there really isn't any reliable source coverage of her. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "referencing" (not): A sentence chosen pretty much at random from the first version (by Jgrahame) is "Roth’s assignments have included hard-news stories in Los Angeles - gang shootings, fires and earthquakes, [reference] and the 1992 riots; the 1989 Philippine coup attempt; and the first post-communist elections in Hungary [reference]." In the current version, it's unchanged, except that two unnecessary spaces have been removed. I'm not going to look at the first reference, because it's to the NYT and I don't want to use up my quota of freebie page views there. The second reference is to an LA Times story by Roth titled "Old World Budapest--Hungary for Style: Glamour-Conscious Youth Dominate the Setting on the City's Central Street". This doesn't mention elections -- indeed, it doesn't even mention politics. It isn't a "hard-news" story by any definition of "hard"; indeed, I'd call it marshmallow soft. And unsurprisingly it says nothing whatever about any assignment for the paper. (All we can see is that there's no sign the story was bought from a news agency, or anyway there's no "[AP]" or similar.) ¶ This "referencing" -- make some bold assertion; cite something on the web that doesn't back it up at all but isn't obviously incompatible with it -- seems to be a trait of this particular contributor; or anyway it follows a pattern I've commented on in AfD/Thatcher Keats. ¶ The contributor has also created Rose Marasco (first edit), Cey Adams (first edit), Lori Nix (first edit), John G. Zimmerman (first edit), Janette Beckman (first edit) and Michael Putland (first edit), the veracity of whose claims probably need checking. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC) .... PS My examination of a single paragraph within one of these (Janette Beckman) has not encouraged me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the notability issues as well as the extremely sketchy sourcing. Concur with Hoary that the contributor's other articles need to be checked over, preferably by someone familiar with photography (I would not be ideal). The use of false citations in these articles is incredibly concerning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PMC (and all), please see Talk:Janette_Beckman#Not credible as a start. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone through the article on Michael Putland. It's pretty bad. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.