- 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. MBisanz talk 14:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Jill Stanek
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jill Stanek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was nominated for PROD by
StarHOG, but was dePROD'd on the technicality of being dePROD'd before. I agree that the subject is not notable per
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL. StarHOG's rationale: The subject's notability seems to be limited to statements made by the subject. A Google search returned twitter and facebook pages before any 3rd party sites. Additionally, many of the Google search 3rd party sites were to hire the subject as a paid speaker. Lastly, the article has a lack of independent, verifiable sourcing.
–
Muboshgu (
talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but the referencing (a mix of primary source government documents that aren't support for notability at all and purely local coverage in her hometown media market, with no evidence whatsoever of any broader nationalized coverage) is not good enough. There's no WP:LASTING significance being shown here that would pass the ten-year test. Bearcat ( talk) 19:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The WP test of notability is not what a Google search returns, nor is it based on the sourcing currently in the article. I have just done a quick search of Newspapers.com, and find a profile of her in an Indianapolis newspaper in 2001, reprinted from The New York Times [1]; a report on two presentations she gave in Pennsylvania in 2004, in a Pennsylvania newspaper [2]; and an article about a forthcoming visit she was making to Michigan in 2006, which says that she had been featured in Newsweek, The Washington Times and The New York Times. I haven't yet searched for coverage in Newsweek or The Washington Times, but it does appear that there was significant, national, sustained coverage of her, and that she therefore does meet WP:GNG. I will try to find more sources and add them to the article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 20:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I've done my own source search and apart from getting a spike of notability in 2001, I agree I don't think coverage of her is WP:LASTING. She received less than 6,000 votes in her run for office so there's potential WP:BLP1E concerns, and while I do see a lot which comes up in searching her in multiple sites, the coverage of her appears to be either primary or fringe. SportingFlyer T· C 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- delete I think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are both factors. No indication of lasting notability. The Pennsylvania coverage of her talk is in the local section and is just news coverage. Right now I'm not seeing convincing proof that the GNG is met. Sandals1 ( talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. This person is not a publishing academic (so citation counting might not be readily applicable), but it appears that her views (statements, Congressional testimony, her blog, etc) are nevertheless referenced in quite a number of books, e.g. here, here, and here. GoogleBooks shows quite a few more and book references tend to be pretty good indicators of LASTING. Agricola44 ( talk) 22:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep based on addition of book sources that cite her statements/opinions. There are more, but seems like 4 should suffice. Agricola44 ( talk) 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note to Closing Admin. The book sources I added were summarily redacted by the original PRODer of this article, who requested more information. I have now added that information, as well as several additional sources to conclusively demonstrate the fact that the subject of this article is widely considered to be a topical expert. I'll presume that this legitimate content will not again be reverted. Parenthetically, I'll also note that these sources were easily and readily found, which raises BEFORE for both the PRODer and AfD nom. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any of those sources are actually helpful for WP:GNG, nor am I sure footnotes talking about blog comments demonstrate enough notability to get one past WP:GNG for a wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Really? Citations in books and journals are not helpful to demonstrate notability? I presume you're aware that this is one of the primary ways that notability is proven in AfD for bios. Might I ask why you feel these particular books/journals are an exception to standard WP protocol? Agricola44 ( talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Thanks Agricola44. You have won me over...good work. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence of this individual meeting WP:GNG has been put forward. Individuals can, however, be notable if their views have been influential; this is a logical consequence of WP:PROF. However, this person is not an academic. The question is, then, whether they are being quoted because the quotes demonstrate their influence, or if they're being quoted in another context. Since the citations for these quotes were put forward late in this discussion, I am relisting this to allow those sources to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: No evidence of this individual meeting WP:GNG has been put forward. Individuals can, however, be notable if their views have been influential; this is a logical consequence of WP:PROF. However, this person is not an academic. The question is, then, whether they are being quoted because the quotes demonstrate their influence, or if they're being quoted in another context. Since the citations for these quotes were put forward late in this discussion, I am relisting this to allow those sources to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, I did say above that I thought that she met the WP:GNG, and I included links to some sources. I have now included in the article several sources, including from Pennsylvania, Indiana (actually, that one was republished from the New York Times), Missouri and Washington DC, as well as Chicago (her home city), and from 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2017. I have tried to find the reported Newsweek coverage, but so far haven't managed to in the archived website. I have also edited the article a bit, adding more info from the sources on her career and personal life. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 23:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG Good job RebeccaGreen. Always a thorough investigator. Lightburst ( talk) 01:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as the article is loaded with authoritative citations, including articles in the The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Book citations, including those published in the Simon & Schuster, also exist about Jill Stanek. Eliko007 ( talk) 21:20, 26 August 2019 (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. MBisanz talk 14:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Jill Stanek
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jill Stanek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was nominated for PROD by
StarHOG, but was dePROD'd on the technicality of being dePROD'd before. I agree that the subject is not notable per
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL. StarHOG's rationale: The subject's notability seems to be limited to statements made by the subject. A Google search returned twitter and facebook pages before any 3rd party sites. Additionally, many of the Google search 3rd party sites were to hire the subject as a paid speaker. Lastly, the article has a lack of independent, verifiable sourcing.
–
Muboshgu (
talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but the referencing (a mix of primary source government documents that aren't support for notability at all and purely local coverage in her hometown media market, with no evidence whatsoever of any broader nationalized coverage) is not good enough. There's no WP:LASTING significance being shown here that would pass the ten-year test. Bearcat ( talk) 19:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The WP test of notability is not what a Google search returns, nor is it based on the sourcing currently in the article. I have just done a quick search of Newspapers.com, and find a profile of her in an Indianapolis newspaper in 2001, reprinted from The New York Times [1]; a report on two presentations she gave in Pennsylvania in 2004, in a Pennsylvania newspaper [2]; and an article about a forthcoming visit she was making to Michigan in 2006, which says that she had been featured in Newsweek, The Washington Times and The New York Times. I haven't yet searched for coverage in Newsweek or The Washington Times, but it does appear that there was significant, national, sustained coverage of her, and that she therefore does meet WP:GNG. I will try to find more sources and add them to the article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 20:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I've done my own source search and apart from getting a spike of notability in 2001, I agree I don't think coverage of her is WP:LASTING. She received less than 6,000 votes in her run for office so there's potential WP:BLP1E concerns, and while I do see a lot which comes up in searching her in multiple sites, the coverage of her appears to be either primary or fringe. SportingFlyer T· C 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- delete I think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are both factors. No indication of lasting notability. The Pennsylvania coverage of her talk is in the local section and is just news coverage. Right now I'm not seeing convincing proof that the GNG is met. Sandals1 ( talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. This person is not a publishing academic (so citation counting might not be readily applicable), but it appears that her views (statements, Congressional testimony, her blog, etc) are nevertheless referenced in quite a number of books, e.g. here, here, and here. GoogleBooks shows quite a few more and book references tend to be pretty good indicators of LASTING. Agricola44 ( talk) 22:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep based on addition of book sources that cite her statements/opinions. There are more, but seems like 4 should suffice. Agricola44 ( talk) 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note to Closing Admin. The book sources I added were summarily redacted by the original PRODer of this article, who requested more information. I have now added that information, as well as several additional sources to conclusively demonstrate the fact that the subject of this article is widely considered to be a topical expert. I'll presume that this legitimate content will not again be reverted. Parenthetically, I'll also note that these sources were easily and readily found, which raises BEFORE for both the PRODer and AfD nom. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any of those sources are actually helpful for WP:GNG, nor am I sure footnotes talking about blog comments demonstrate enough notability to get one past WP:GNG for a wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Really? Citations in books and journals are not helpful to demonstrate notability? I presume you're aware that this is one of the primary ways that notability is proven in AfD for bios. Might I ask why you feel these particular books/journals are an exception to standard WP protocol? Agricola44 ( talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Thanks Agricola44. You have won me over...good work. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence of this individual meeting WP:GNG has been put forward. Individuals can, however, be notable if their views have been influential; this is a logical consequence of WP:PROF. However, this person is not an academic. The question is, then, whether they are being quoted because the quotes demonstrate their influence, or if they're being quoted in another context. Since the citations for these quotes were put forward late in this discussion, I am relisting this to allow those sources to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: No evidence of this individual meeting WP:GNG has been put forward. Individuals can, however, be notable if their views have been influential; this is a logical consequence of WP:PROF. However, this person is not an academic. The question is, then, whether they are being quoted because the quotes demonstrate their influence, or if they're being quoted in another context. Since the citations for these quotes were put forward late in this discussion, I am relisting this to allow those sources to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, I did say above that I thought that she met the WP:GNG, and I included links to some sources. I have now included in the article several sources, including from Pennsylvania, Indiana (actually, that one was republished from the New York Times), Missouri and Washington DC, as well as Chicago (her home city), and from 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2017. I have tried to find the reported Newsweek coverage, but so far haven't managed to in the archived website. I have also edited the article a bit, adding more info from the sources on her career and personal life. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 23:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG Good job RebeccaGreen. Always a thorough investigator. Lightburst ( talk) 01:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as the article is loaded with authoritative citations, including articles in the The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Book citations, including those published in the Simon & Schuster, also exist about Jill Stanek. Eliko007 ( talk) 21:20, 26 August 2019 (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.