Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Morse

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. Sandstein 19:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Morse

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

Lacks sufficient reliable secondary source coverage to support a biography; as such, fails WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching on "Jennifer Roback Morse" and "Jennifer Anne Roback" reveals she is the author or co-author of 10 books, and in the 1980's had some economics publications, including one with Cal Thomas. There is also a more recent set of articles over a kerfuffle with the Southern Poverty Law Center's inclusion of the Ruth Institute on a list of hate groups, including some notice by John Stossel. I apologize I haven't time this week to read and analyze these sources, and there may not be enough written about her in reliable sources to meet GNG, but I'm hoping others will evaluate the sources available under her full names to determine her eligibility. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start on a list of sources:

National Review

Hoover Institute

Salvo

Huffington Post

Slate.com

Think Progress

The Gospel Coalition

Social Trends Instititue

The American Consrvative

The Advocate, 2014

The Advocate, 2013

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable sources available via web-search, I've added some. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added are of mixed quality. National Review is good. The "Truth-out" page is a commentary piece, and thus of less value than a news piece. The NC Register is about the Ruth Institute, using Roback as the spokesman, rather than about Roback herself, and would lend better to a Ruth Institute article... but that gets into the nagging question as to whether the Institute is actually anything more than just Roback. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had the same question... I'm reticent to make biographical articles coatracks for criticism of organizations that those people are affiliated with; should this article be renamed "Ruth Institute" and the name be a redirect? If most/all of the sources are about her affiliation with the Ruth Institute, the article should probably bbe at that title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their website does list a "Circle of Experts", but it is unclear whether this is just people Ruth talks to, whether they represent them for speaking engagements, or what. Probably not even the latter, because the "Where we'll be" page makes it clear that this is where Roback will be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Does seem to be a prolific author, but the subjects she writes on are popular, meaning her book holdings (e.g. A Matter of Choice ~350) are somewhat average. But, when you add other things, like a dedicated piece in National Review, I think it probably just passes. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although her brief academic career falls short of WP:PROF, enough has been written about her to meet WP:GNG. Since the name she is most know by is "Jennifer Roback Morse", I suggest the article be moved to that title, which is now a redirect. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:EDITATAFD, please note I have substantially edited the article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 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.