Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Jacobs (2nd nomination)

Rachel Jacobs

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

fails WP:GNG , WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The accident she died in is notable, she is not. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you misunderstand WP:NOTMEMORIAL which reads: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Jacobs passes WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Much (though not all) coverage of Jacobs was certainly sparked by her death, but the coverage passes WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: This is not the same person as was covered in the referenced previous discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So why is that misleading tag on this AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE, if performed, should have turned up substantive coverage of Jacobs in the years before her tragic death. I have added some of this coverage to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jacobs passes WP:GNG because coverage of her is both extensive and detailed. [1] I created the article. I would not have done so if she was being covered merely in passing as part of the event. While it is true that the tragic nature of her death sparked the current coverage, Her accomplishments were being covered before her death.[2] And the intensity of in-depth coverage she is now receiving makes her WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely sad but no evidence she meets WP:GNG. She has a common name, but I wasn't able to find sufficient coverage of her prior to the obituaries. @E.M.Gregory: long-term coverage is required, all articles are from the past 24 hours except for one last month about her being a new hire at the company —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder. I did, before starting the article. Coverage exists over several years. Will add.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: FYI "look harder" isn't the most helpful suggestion in an AfD. Please give us links to the coverage you've found that supports your case, or let us know when the refs are in the article itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: what policy are you citing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:NRV: "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." Let us know when they've been added to the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: what policy are you citing when you assert that long-term coverage is required?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Substantive, pre-Amtrak coverage of Jacobs (re:start-ups) is in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:BASIC: "extensive and detailed" coverage is not always sufficient: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." All the references so far indicates this is a WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL situation. Extensive obituaries are expected for everyone associated with the event. It should be clear they would have met the GNG prior to this event (ie could they have qualified for article have been last week?). WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE would help your case and may still appear. For example, there are victims of 9/11 who have WP biographies because, even though they were known for being killed on 9/11, long-term coverage appeared for various reasons (posthumous awards; things named in their honor, etc). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting interpretation, but not what WP:BASIC actually says. Several of the other victims fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT, a policy with which I am familiar and which I believe does not fit Jacobs. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Which Jacobs has received. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation: that is what WP:BASIC says. Very specifically. Whether or not Jacobs is one-event is what is debatable. I don't see how she qualifies; neither did the nominator of this article. The other stuff you've added, like the Detroit Nation group, is just not that notable. It really does not qualify as a start-up company, as there are no indications it's even a business. There is coverage of the group and other regional groups like it that mention her, but she is not the subject of these articles, and the notability for the group and her company is just not there. But AfDs run a full seven days for a reason, so hopefully you will find something. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We just went through this for Dan Fredinburg, concluding with no consensus/keep. That discussion may be relevant here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOT MEMORIAL. References such as obits and memorials should not prove notability when there is nothing notable in the career, except for a fe exceptional papers (we accept the NYT and the Times). Basic policies such as NOT MEMORIAL are more important than the GNG guideline--which specifically says that meeting the GNG is not necessarily reason to have an article. And, needlessto say, even if we did follow precedent, a non-consensus close is no precedent in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 70.192.71.123 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]