Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Jacobson

: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. Flowerparty☀ 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

=[[Nancy Jacobson]]=

:{{la|Nancy Jacobson}} ([{{fullurl:Nancy Jacobson|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Jacobson}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Biography of a living person without reliable sources. Ref 1. blog, 2. not mentioned in source, 3. not mentioned in source, 4. not mentioned in source, 5. blog, 6. 404, 7. blog, 8. tabloid attack article. See also Cary's m:OTRS Ticket:2009050110020469. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-01t15:45z 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment What does the OTRS ticket say? Drawn Some (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They're confidential per Wikipedia's privacy policy - the link's for m:OTRS' BLP volunteers. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-01t17:43z
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Signifcant political figure. The NYT article, ref 7, is not a blog, despite the name, but a reliable source--the user comments are not a RS, but the entry itself is the same as if it were in the print NYT. If you have access, what is the general nature of the request? DGG (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

::It's a NYT blog. The blogs on the NYT site are labeled as such and have a different set of standards--they aren't independently fact-checked, etc. as regular articles are. I'm not saying that they are or aren't reliable sources but they are blogs not articles. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Not really. They're the equivalent of columns, with provision for reader responses. The named journalists who write the main article are responsible star journalists for a major newspaper, and their writings are somewhere between specialized reporting and expert opinion. The blog name refers to the opportunity for readers to write their comments--and the readers comments are of course of no authority . In all respects other than the opportunity for facile response, the features are every bit as reliable as if they were in print. DGG (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Week Keep References tend to be brief and too interested in the fact that [http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/1705.html she's married to Mark Penn], but they appear to be there. And, though lists of "X most mentionable people" aren't good references per se, it's worth paying attention when [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.roth-sinderbrand.html multiple] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1435442/The-most-influential-US-liberals-1-20.html reliable] [http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5843&pageNum=11 sources] put a person on their "top DC power people" lists. Rklear (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I didn't see substantial coverage indicating notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article suffers from a promotional tone -- I'm working on that -- but the subject is clearly a notable player in Democratic Party politics and deserves coverage. -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:BLOGS is a good here. Blogs aren't de facto bad sources. In this case they're all written by established journalists attached to solid publications. That said, large parts of the article are missing sources and should be cut. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • keep per DGG. Needs some clean up but that's not a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As creator/primary author of article, I have requested speedy deletion because content has been corrupted by unreliable sources. Thank you.Journalist1983 (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

:*I removed the speedy tag. G7 requires that you be the only substantial author, yet your complaint seems to be that other editors have added content of which you disapprove. You can't have it both ways. Rklear (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

delete page, there is no reason to have her in wiki with the blog cites. if you cant delete just take out paragragh in question. that would be a compromise solution.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaa22 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

DELETE PAGEi agree compromise is solution for this issue here... it seems very suspicious why there is such interest in this woman and that the insertion of the paragragh in question came many many months after the "event" that actually never took place! all so silly and it seems as if someone is trying to malign her. What "anonymous" person whould be so interested in this person as to insert a blog comment about her -- about an event that NEVER even took place! just either take the entry out - to compromise or take the page out if we all cant agree. and by the way... have the person identify themselves and prove there is not malice here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardg5438 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

DELETE this whole page and argument seems like such a waste of energy. why do people care so much about this person? just be done with this and either remove the page or take out the paragraph in question. and you are right -- if someone cares so---- much its hard to believe this is not driven by personal vandetta!!!

: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.