Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jena Friedman

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Friedman

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

Nominated by IP editor on Talk:Jena Friedman (diff). Reason given: This person is only a writer for various television shows, and really isn't that notable to have their own page, based on the Wikipedia: Notability Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.17.137 (talk) 4:33 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) clpo13_(talk) 09:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an in-depth source here and another one here. Many references found here including a listing here, a paragraph here, a mention here and here and here. She wrote and directed a musical. A quote here. A paragraph here. Thing is, with the international connection (Scotland) and being well-connected with top comedy acts (Letterman, Stewart), plus being a comedian, all adds up to meeting the WP:GNG. If article is kept I'll try to improve it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable based on numerous secondary sources providing non-trivial coverage. Wikipedia editors don't decide if something is notable or not, the sources do. This subject has sources. -Markeer 17:54, 28 February 2016 (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.