Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Stanek

Jill Stanek

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]