Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Jane Kendrick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. We've only got two users making substantive arguments after two weeks of debate, and neither argument is particularly strong or weak, so I don't really see any consensus emerging here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtney Jane Kendrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails general notability guidelines — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Admittedly this article is currently in pretty poor shape. That said, the general notability guidelines that the nominator references indicates that a person or entity is notable if it has mutliple third pary reliable sources with nontrivial coverage--and WP:WEB indicates that web content is notable if its "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries [and] websites...."
This person's personal writing has attracted not only local interest (not only in Arizona but also in the heart of the Mormon corridor up in Salt Lake City) but also national and international coverage.
(That said, only personal information should be referenced to Kendrick's own writings and more information needs to be culled from available 3rd-party sources.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I was the OP, but not the relister. Can't see how she is incredibly notable, except for being interviewed once. Not notable enough for article which talks mostly about her blog. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't be sure, but it seems that OP seems to discount news coverage from Mormon Times, etc. Such coverage is more than local (comparable to a neighborhood Seventh Day Adventist journal in some town in the U.S. Midwest, or a neighborhood Jewish journal in Brooklyn or a neighborhood Muslim journal in Detroit). Mormons make up 1.7% of the U.S. population, according to the recent Pew survey, the exact number of American Jews and a bit less than twice as many American Muslims, so such coverage would obviously be comparable to mainstream journalistic coverage in the Adventist, the Jewish, or the Muslim press.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added later (...To give my comment more granularity: Along with the subject's being interviewed on network morning news (NBC's Today) in '08 and by Interfaith Voices in 2010, in an article surveying the Mormon blogosphere in the peer-reviewed journal BYU Studies, Emily W. Jensen, a reporter for Mormon Times whose beat encompasses this area, singled out Kendrick's blog along with one other mom blog as "nationally recognized.")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no problem with "Mormon" coverage. I don't care what the percentage of the US population is LDS for this topic. Just reading the article, there is nothing in it that demonstrates her notability. All it does is say she is a columnist and has a blog; that doesn't make her notable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm----you're probably right. Although I don't read mommy blogs, I'm sure their readership outpaces the political blogs I do check in on frequently (my probably sharing with many WPdian's "systemic bias" in this regard... [Addendum: Here is a talkpage section devoted to this topic.]); IAC, I'll at least cite references for the information that had already been contributed to this article and then in addition will source a few third-party source that esteem Ms. Kendrick (aka C Jane) of note as an author. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't be sure, but it seems that OP seems to discount news coverage from Mormon Times, etc. Such coverage is more than local (comparable to a neighborhood Seventh Day Adventist journal in some town in the U.S. Midwest, or a neighborhood Jewish journal in Brooklyn or a neighborhood Muslim journal in Detroit). Mormons make up 1.7% of the U.S. population, according to the recent Pew survey, the exact number of American Jews and a bit less than twice as many American Muslims, so such coverage would obviously be comparable to mainstream journalistic coverage in the Adventist, the Jewish, or the Muslim press.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Garden - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (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.