This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
I'm sorry if this is just me, but the subject of the article doesn't come off as too notable as written. What we have is a very brief listing of career details with no further information on the significance of the individual. If possible, can a clean-up be organized, and if not, can a more well-versed editor look into this and decide if the the significance of the individual better explained? And if not, can somebody look into the notability of the individual and decide if the individual is noteworthy enough for an article? 222.164.218.4 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors and an IP have been deleting RS-supported material, claiming that they know better and that the refs contain "inaccuracies". That is not proper editing. They are also inserting material that they should not insert, such as what they "know" to be true, though they are simply another Wikipedia editor. That is not proper. They are also leaving false edit summaries, such as here, where they make a deletion but claim in the edit summary that they are fixing a typo. Those sorts of falsehoods and efforts to deceive are not acceptable. Finally, they make baseless non-RS-supported assertions such as what the subject is primarily known for, or delete material such as the subject's boss's assertion of failings of Nuzzi, or add extraneous material out of nowhere with no connection to the subject such as "that David Carr, the late New York Times media columnist, once praised for its ability to thrive while shunning the internet." That is all inappropriate. --2604:2000:E016:A700:5540:97E0:687C:E1DB (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}