- 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 keep. KaisaL ( talk) 23:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Jazmine Hughes
- Jazmine Hughes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Supporting Organization or People Laxnesh LOKEN ( talk) 19:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Please elaborate the reason for deletion. "Supporting Organization or People" does not sound like valid reasons for deletion. Hitro talk 19:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Hi, original article creator here, I'm confused too about why this was nominated for deletion. As far as I can tell it's very similar to many other pages for American writers that have been accepted. Happy to make any necessary changes if I'm missing something but as far as I can tell it meets requirements for neutrality, notability, and so forth. Thanks. Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, added a couple of projects to article talkpage so they are alerted. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, hi HitroMilanese and Innisfree987, although the nominator's reason is confusing, if you believe the article subject is notable, a "keep" and why would be helpful. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment thanks for the advice Coolabahapple, will do! Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a significant American writer and editor who's been highly accomplished at a very young age (joining editorial staff at the New York Times Magazine at 23), and The Washington Post, The Guardian, Teen Vogue and The Huffington Post have all run articles about her and her work, in addition to the many significant outlets that have published work by her ( The New Yorker, The New Republic, Elle). Please see this entry's reference list for links to all. To me she clearly (and verifiably, neutrally) meets standards for notability. Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as above the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources so WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete but allow later. This person has done much writing, but there is little written about her at this time. I can find interviews (which are primary sources) and mentions, but not an in-depth article about her and her accomplishments. She is quite young, so this could well be rectified in the future (maybe she'll write a best-seller!), but right now what I see is TOOSOON. Note that we often have a hard time finding sufficient sources for journalists since they tend not to be written about. That they write a lot, though, is because it is their job; we require sources ABOUT people for notability. LaMona ( talk) 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've just added seven more secondary sources (i.e. not including interviews) on her career, her work, and accolades for them. Innisfree987 ( talk) 03:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Request User:Innisfree987, the page is oversourced. Overstuffed with article by and articles that merely mention Hughes. You would help your case is you flagged in this debate profiles of her, major prizes won, secondary coverage supporting notability of things she has written, and articles from secondary sources covering her job moves. Letting some of the hot air out of the article would also help. Flag me to revisit, if you like. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Per your request User:E.M.Gregory:
- Links to secondary sources solely devoted to engaging with subject's work:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/23/editor-at-new-york-times-magazine-dresses-up-for-work-for-cosmo-experiment/
- http://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/want-to-beat-impostor-syndrome-a-new-york-times-editor-shows-how-its-done.html
- http://www.dailydot.com/via/new-republic-hughes-racial-humor/
- http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/leon-wieseltiers-head-just-exploded/
- http://saintheron.com/news/this-ny-times-editor-channelled-cookie-lyons-style-for-a-week/
- Links to secondary sources solely devoted to engaging with subject's work:
- Links to articles naming subject to "Best of" lists (also secondary sources):
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/required-reading-for-women-2014_n_6336424.html
- http://www.bkmag.com/2016/03/01/the-100-most-influential-people-in-brooklyn-culture-2/
- http://hellogiggles.com/internet-women-we-love/
- http://www.autostraddle.com/215-of-the-best-longreads-of-2015-all-written-by-women-319679/
- Links to articles naming subject to "Best of" lists (also secondary sources):
- And then as you say, there are still more secondary sources that mention her. I'll note from
WP:BASIC: "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
- As for editorial choices like reducing number of sources or "hot air", seems like we should save that for entry's talk page rather than the AfD discussion of the entry's notability, no? (Or of course please dive in and make changes you see fit!) Innisfree987 ( talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- And then as you say, there are still more secondary sources that mention her. I'll note from
WP:BASIC: "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
- very, very weak keep she is clearly having a moment. It is very early career for a journalist, and, certainly, it would be preferable to have an actual profile of her somewhere. Or even a substantive Q & A. A major award or piece of journalism with substantive impact (many journalists can claim credit for a story that caused a piece of legislation, a significant new regulation, some other real-world game-changer to happen. or a career to crash) The impact of her work documented above here is trivial, and may look more so in a few years. But I think that there is enough to keep, if just barely. Thanks to Innisfree987 for making the case simple to sort out. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to help! And actually, when I went to retrieve Q&As to add, I'm reminded there is a profile:
- And then here's the Q&A I was thinking of:
- In case those may be helpful to anyone. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to help! And actually, when I went to retrieve Q&As to add, I'm reminded there is a profile:
- Keep There's been enough coverage in reliable sources for here to at least pass WP:GNG. The added links by Innisfree just add to this. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete instead as although there are some claims, it's all still questionable and there's frankly still nothing else convincingly better; she's only the Digital Editor, not the actual editor overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Will point out that job title is not a reason to overrule the presumption of notability WP:BASIC gives when multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources have found the subject noteworthy--unless I misunderstand, it's not one of the exclusion criteria. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Some source examples are listed below. North America 1000 13:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
References
- Snow Keep Other than maybe the dailydot, all sources Northamerica1000 lists above are entirely about the subject. Even a few paragraphs in mutliple quality sources like the guardian are enough to meet WP:Basic, so the keep case here is compelling. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. KaisaL ( talk) 23:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Jazmine Hughes
- Jazmine Hughes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Supporting Organization or People Laxnesh LOKEN ( talk) 19:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Please elaborate the reason for deletion. "Supporting Organization or People" does not sound like valid reasons for deletion. Hitro talk 19:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Hi, original article creator here, I'm confused too about why this was nominated for deletion. As far as I can tell it's very similar to many other pages for American writers that have been accepted. Happy to make any necessary changes if I'm missing something but as far as I can tell it meets requirements for neutrality, notability, and so forth. Thanks. Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, added a couple of projects to article talkpage so they are alerted. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, hi HitroMilanese and Innisfree987, although the nominator's reason is confusing, if you believe the article subject is notable, a "keep" and why would be helpful. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment thanks for the advice Coolabahapple, will do! Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a significant American writer and editor who's been highly accomplished at a very young age (joining editorial staff at the New York Times Magazine at 23), and The Washington Post, The Guardian, Teen Vogue and The Huffington Post have all run articles about her and her work, in addition to the many significant outlets that have published work by her ( The New Yorker, The New Republic, Elle). Please see this entry's reference list for links to all. To me she clearly (and verifiably, neutrally) meets standards for notability. Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as above the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources so WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete but allow later. This person has done much writing, but there is little written about her at this time. I can find interviews (which are primary sources) and mentions, but not an in-depth article about her and her accomplishments. She is quite young, so this could well be rectified in the future (maybe she'll write a best-seller!), but right now what I see is TOOSOON. Note that we often have a hard time finding sufficient sources for journalists since they tend not to be written about. That they write a lot, though, is because it is their job; we require sources ABOUT people for notability. LaMona ( talk) 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've just added seven more secondary sources (i.e. not including interviews) on her career, her work, and accolades for them. Innisfree987 ( talk) 03:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Request User:Innisfree987, the page is oversourced. Overstuffed with article by and articles that merely mention Hughes. You would help your case is you flagged in this debate profiles of her, major prizes won, secondary coverage supporting notability of things she has written, and articles from secondary sources covering her job moves. Letting some of the hot air out of the article would also help. Flag me to revisit, if you like. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Per your request User:E.M.Gregory:
- Links to secondary sources solely devoted to engaging with subject's work:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/23/editor-at-new-york-times-magazine-dresses-up-for-work-for-cosmo-experiment/
- http://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/want-to-beat-impostor-syndrome-a-new-york-times-editor-shows-how-its-done.html
- http://www.dailydot.com/via/new-republic-hughes-racial-humor/
- http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/leon-wieseltiers-head-just-exploded/
- http://saintheron.com/news/this-ny-times-editor-channelled-cookie-lyons-style-for-a-week/
- Links to secondary sources solely devoted to engaging with subject's work:
- Links to articles naming subject to "Best of" lists (also secondary sources):
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/required-reading-for-women-2014_n_6336424.html
- http://www.bkmag.com/2016/03/01/the-100-most-influential-people-in-brooklyn-culture-2/
- http://hellogiggles.com/internet-women-we-love/
- http://www.autostraddle.com/215-of-the-best-longreads-of-2015-all-written-by-women-319679/
- Links to articles naming subject to "Best of" lists (also secondary sources):
- And then as you say, there are still more secondary sources that mention her. I'll note from
WP:BASIC: "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
- As for editorial choices like reducing number of sources or "hot air", seems like we should save that for entry's talk page rather than the AfD discussion of the entry's notability, no? (Or of course please dive in and make changes you see fit!) Innisfree987 ( talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- And then as you say, there are still more secondary sources that mention her. I'll note from
WP:BASIC: "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
- very, very weak keep she is clearly having a moment. It is very early career for a journalist, and, certainly, it would be preferable to have an actual profile of her somewhere. Or even a substantive Q & A. A major award or piece of journalism with substantive impact (many journalists can claim credit for a story that caused a piece of legislation, a significant new regulation, some other real-world game-changer to happen. or a career to crash) The impact of her work documented above here is trivial, and may look more so in a few years. But I think that there is enough to keep, if just barely. Thanks to Innisfree987 for making the case simple to sort out. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to help! And actually, when I went to retrieve Q&As to add, I'm reminded there is a profile:
- And then here's the Q&A I was thinking of:
- In case those may be helpful to anyone. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to help! And actually, when I went to retrieve Q&As to add, I'm reminded there is a profile:
- Keep There's been enough coverage in reliable sources for here to at least pass WP:GNG. The added links by Innisfree just add to this. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete instead as although there are some claims, it's all still questionable and there's frankly still nothing else convincingly better; she's only the Digital Editor, not the actual editor overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Will point out that job title is not a reason to overrule the presumption of notability WP:BASIC gives when multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources have found the subject noteworthy--unless I misunderstand, it's not one of the exclusion criteria. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Some source examples are listed below. North America 1000 13:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
References
- Snow Keep Other than maybe the dailydot, all sources Northamerica1000 lists above are entirely about the subject. Even a few paragraphs in mutliple quality sources like the guardian are enough to meet WP:Basic, so the keep case here is compelling. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.