Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Gale

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gale

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

Biography of a perennial candidate whose claim of notability rests on unsuccessful runs for political office in a single city — not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. It's not particularly well-sourced either, as it relies extremely heavily on unreliable (e.g. blogs, local bicycling advocacy committee newsletters) and primary sources (her own Twitter); the number of references here would be more than halved if I actually trimmed them back to the legitimately reliable sources, and when you're counting references, "less than half of 16" is a WP:GNG fail. If this were Austinpedia, I'd let it go — but it's not, and what I'm not seeing here is a substantive or well-sourced reason why she needs an article in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Numerous reliable sources regarding her death（[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]）and her candidacy.（[13][14][15][16][17]) (210 articles in [18])The article doesn't need to rely on primary sources, since we can write a good article based on the given sources. The nominator's rationale sounds rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's rationale "sounds" like nothing of the sort; it sounds like, and is, "the article relies almost entirely on bad sources". And being a candidate fails WP:NPOL, so coverage of a candidacy has to explode into Christine O'Donnell proportions (which this didn't) to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for being a candidate — and coverage of a person's death doesn't get them past GNG by itself either; people don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just for dying, so if that's where the weight of the sourcing sits then it doesn't get a person over the bar either. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete. Appears to be written by a fan. Fails WP:NPOL. Her biggest claim to notability IMO appears to be "her" obvious affinity towards LGBT. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd caution you to leave your personal feelings about LGBT people (i.e. scare-quoting a transgender person's gender pronoun) out of it — her gender identity has no bearing, in either direction, on whether she qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails NPOL.Mr. Guye (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. Jennifer might not have been a politician but she sure did represent Texas eccentricity and had lots of media mentions for being a homeless transgender woman. Her death reports alone were covered by a range of local and national media. This needs to be cleaned up not removed. Brow Driperoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browdripper (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely disagree with IP 180.172.239.231's characterisation of Bearcat's reasons for proposing the article for deletion, but the vast number of reliable sources that he has provided, in addition to those already present on her article, means that I'm confident she passes WP:GNG. Tiller54 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local coverage only and fails NPOL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 23 September 2014 (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.