Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Collen Jefferson

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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Collen Jefferson

[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)

Does not appear to meet standards of WP: GNG. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, this is written like an essay with largely unreferenced prose. I find mentions of her, and she writes for a newspaper, but nothing that satisfied GNG. This is way too long for the few sources it contains. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been substantially updated since this comment. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is an attorney and founder of a civil rights organization, e.g. 'There's a pattern': MS civil rights attorney on mistreated lynching cases across state (MSNBC, 2021), Attorney: Judge awards $11M to family of MS man found hanging from tree (Clarion Ledger, 2021), Mississippi cops sued over alleged civil rights violations against Black residents (ABC News, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify per WP:BASIC - there is also an extensive report on her involvement in one of her cases: Mississippi’s history of lynchings haunts grieving mother (WaPo, 2021). There is information about the founding of her organization in Sports Illustrated (2022), some biographical information in the Northside Sun (2022). It also appears there are sources embedded in the article in an incorrect citation format that can also be used to help improve this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC) updated !vote Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is certainly in better shape than it was, but ultimately I think the sourcing just isn't there. Of the sources listed above, the MSNBC one is a talk-show interview (not independent/reliable), the Clarion Ledger one just quotes a press release Jefferson issued (not independent/significant), the ABC News one is an interview without substantial non-interview content (not independent), the same is true for the Washington Post one, the Sports Illustrated one contains only a few sentences of non-interview content (not significant), and the same is true for the Northside Sun/Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting one. The other sources available in the article and elsewhere seem to have the same problems: they consist much more of Jefferson talking than of others talking about her. It is true that WP:BASIC gives us some leeway in cases where individual sources don't quite clear the sigcov threshold, but it does still require that the sources be independent, and my view is that once we discount the non-independent parts of these sources, what remains is much closer to the trivial coverage that BASIC says isn't sufficient. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: a lot of the sources here are fairly recent, so it's possible that this is just a case of TOOSOON. If higher-quality sourcing turns up in the future, I would certainly have no problem with recreating or restoring the article at that time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I updated my !vote to draftify, because TOOSOON seems like a fair assessment, and it appears a case is continuing with the distinct possibility of future coverage, and I think I could develop this article with some additional time and coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftifying is fine by me as well—I agree that there's a reasonable prospect of more coverage in the coming months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2022 (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.