Julie Szego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
2. bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
3. The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
4. thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
5. The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.

None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per TarnishedPath nomination and extensive explanation. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• <a>Redirect to Tony Lupton#Personal life per ATD and CHEAP. The reasoning of the delete-supporters is sound; the conclusion differs. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to the suggested redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RebeccaGreen convinced me that the author passes NAUTHOR. See list in her comment below. gidonb (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's her articles which are widely quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being quoted is not independent from the subject. Isaidnoway addressed that above. We don't count sources which are not independent from the subject as counting towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being quoted is being cited, that is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR #1 is about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least 10 sources, other than "The Age". Her views are being widely discussed. SRamzy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources? I have demonstrated above that none of the sources brought to the AFD demonstrate notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per multiple sources presented during the AfD that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Independent sources that cite her views include: Voices of Us [1]; The Bible and the Business of Life, p201-202 [2]; Rise of the Right [3]; Pandemic of Perspectives [4]; an article in the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics [5]; Guy Rundle, 'Goodbye to All That', p 329, in The Best Australian Political Writing 2008 [6]; and see Google Scholar's list of her works and the articles and books they're cited in [7]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the articles in mention that you've provided appear to be mentions in passing. 6 mentions in passing is not what I consider would meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".

  The 7th link you've provided appears to be mostly populated by her own articles. I see J Szego - The Age, 20xx or similar over and over. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Google Scholar link shows Szego's articles and the number of times each has been cited. If you click on 'Cited by N', you see lists of the other books and articles which cite her - evidence that she has been widely cited by peers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of her newspaper articles are getting between 2 and 4 quotes. I hardly see that as evidence of being regarded as an important figure in the field of journalism or being widely cited. Indeed when I look at that list the only sources that get more than 4 cites are the works of others, which would be mentioning her in passing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]