Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ward (2nd nomination)

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. No prejudice against renomination at any time. Deor (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ward[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, with serious advertorial overtones ("interviewing expertise was finely honed", "won her great acclaim") and sourced only to her promotional bio on her own employer's website (an invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that cannot confer notability.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if this can be written and sourced properly, but she's not entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. It says, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The bio by CTV does not fit this definition. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the guideline's text doesn't cover every possible permutation of a primary source, a corporate bio of a person employed by that corporation is a clearcut case of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, as Bearcat has stated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response misidentifies a core content policy as a guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleared up the BLP sourcing concerns, and tone problem. Notability was shown at the previous AfD. Please withdraw your nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you haven't "cleared up" the sourcing concerns at all — all you did is replace one primary source link with a different URL for the same primary source, so nothing has actually changed. And as for the previous AFD, firstly it was closed as "no consensus" rather than "keep" — and secondly, consensus can change, so any article on Wikipedia can be renominated at any time if there are valid reasons to revisit it, even if it has been kept at AFD in the past. Our referencing and inclusion standards have changed a lot since this article was first created in 2006 — a lot of things that were considered acceptable back then aren't anymore (or were never actually acceptable but just somehow slipped through the cracks). So, while I'm always willing to withdraw a nomination if the concerns that I expressed are properly dealt with, so far the problems with this haven't been adequately addressed. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I "cleared up the BLP sourcing concerns". You say that I "haven't 'cleared up' the sourcing concerns at all". It may only be one source, but it is a WP:RS and all material in the article is WP:V verifiable. What else is there in WP:BLP that you think needs attention? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You stated in the nomination that the article had "serious advertorial overtones" (wikilinked to a disambiguation page). I stated that I had cleared up the tone problem. Do you agree that your concerns about a "serious advertorial overtones" are gone? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that the article is written and sourced properly? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article currently sourced properly? No, because the only source is Ward's employer -- which means the source is not independent, and should be viewed as biased. That calls into questions all statements except the basic ones about her employment at CTV. For example, the claim about two Emmys (upon which her notability might hinge) should be independently sourced. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:V states, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral." The content guideline WP:IRS states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." As far as I know, CTV is a professional national news organization and a WP:RS. Do you have information to the contrary? Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's only an essay, see WP:IS. I believe many people subscribe to it. Under the list of non-independent sources for a person: "Person, family members, friends, employer, employees". [edited to add: or the even more famous essay WP:42] --Larry/Traveling_Man(talk) 05:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm one of the authors of the current version of WP:42. The first three words are (emphasis added) "We generally require..." Below in the notes, it says, "*This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in a case of inconsistency with this page." Below that is a link to an essay named, "WP:Don't cite WP42 at AfD". WP:42 is focused on WP:GNG notability and is hopefully helpful for newbies; but WP:N does not require WP:GNG, WP:IRS does not require independence, and articles do not require sourcing to prove that they meet any form of WP:N. The content requirement missing in this article is at WP:V#Notability, which requires one source, although this issue is rarely mentioned at AfD. I continue to maintain that the material in this article is properly sourced to a WP:RS and has no WP:BLP issues. wp:notability is a separate discussion. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I missed that. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if we can get agreement on those points for now. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is going to take me more time to form an opinion, but here are some initial comments:
- The previous Afd in 2009 did not find that Jennifer Ward was notable. Rather, there was no consensus.
- From what I've found so far, she doesn't meet general notability guidelines. This article has one reference -- which cannot be used to determine general notability, since it's a bio for her at the place where she works, and thus not an independent source.
- WP:CREATIVE says it includes journalists. She doesn't qualify based on the first three cirteria. Criterion #4 is another story: "The person's work (or works)...(c) has won significant critical attention...". According to the listed reference[1], "she won two Emmy Awards as the reporter/host for her stories on school violence and medical news." This leads to two issues: (1) does this lesser known category of Emmy's count as significant critical attention; (2) is there a reliable, independent source for this (the specified source employs her, so it's not independent)? The EMMY online source [2] doesn't seem to list awards going back far enough. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article that Tchaliburton found names one of the two and identifies the awards as regional. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-OK to ask Wikiproject?. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a reference to what two awards were won: national; regional; to a large group of people? Here's what I'd like to ask a Wikiproject:

The person in question has won two News Emmy's. I don't know which two, and the only online source I know of [3] only goes back to 2000; these Emmys were won in the 1990's. My questions:

(1) Does the winning of any national News Emmy indicate notability? Sometimes a single award goes to a large group of people (I see one case of over 30 people listed).

(2) How about a regional Emmy?

If there's already consensus on this, could someone point me in the right direction? Otherwise, does anyone consider it canvassing if I ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I think that CTV can be trusted as a reliable source. But in any case, here is another reference that mentions her Emmy win. I believe this is sufficient for WP:Creative. It does need to be cleaned up, but AFD is not cleanup. Here are some references that may help: 1, 2, 3. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added one of your references and used it to determine the birthyear(s). Anymore "cleanup" concerns? Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a person has a profile on the corporate website of the company they work for is not, in and of itself, evidence that they belong in an encyclopedia. CTV's news coverage is certainly a solid source in many other contexts, but its own marketing profiles of its own staff are primary sources which cannot grant notability. You're on the right track in your attempts to track down additional sourcing, but the article couldn't be kept if the CTV profile was its only source. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that the CTV reference conveys notability, just that I think the facts can be taken as accurate. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long career as a nationally-known personality, with international references. Article satisfies all core content policies. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jennifer Ward won two Mid-Atlantic Emmy awards during her stint at WTXF-Fox Philadelphia. The first was in 1998 for Outstanding Health & Science News/Series - "Maverick Medicine".[4] and the second was as a host of "Violence in Our Schools" in 1999,[5] which won Outstanding Talk Program/One Time Only Special. Whether regional Emmys count as "significant critical attention" (WP:CREATIVE #4c) is debatable. Fuebaey (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons Unscintillating gave.ShulMaven (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think it's debatable: regional Emmys should not be considered major, significant awards, simply because they happen to share the name Emmy with other awards which are. I can't find the independent notable coverage that Bearcat rights asks for. And despite having been a host on CTV's news network and the morning show Canada AM for "14 years," she doesn't seem to have any national award during that all time: no Geminis, Canadian Screen Awards, ACTRA Awards, nothing -- which does not bolster the case that she meets WP:CREATIVE. Delete, at least until such time as she gains some notable distinction that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE or gets the sort of independent coverage that WP:BASIC calls for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. See my detailed comments above. Ignoring awards for the moment, I don't see that she has garnered significant in-depth coverage. Now, back to those awards. I'm a little leery of accepting regional awards as proof of notability. Her awards don't seem to have gotten much attention outside of the area. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. even with the added sources, she appears to be of minor regional notability only. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get very concerned when I see references to web sites such as odssf.com which have an "About us" page that says absolutely nothing about them. This leads me to believe that they are not reliable sources of information but are only a collection of user-generated content without editorial oversight. I am also concerned that the description of her as it now stands in the article here suggests that she has received the same Emmy awards that are given to national newscasters— according to what appears above, this is misleading at best and deceitful at worst. In the end, the whole thing starts to smack of desperation. It seems like assessing the notability of someone whom others have suggested is clearly notable should not be so very difficult. And if it is difficult, then the person in question is probably not notable. KDS4444^Talk 18:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are two other sources not mentioned in the discussion (the first provides significant coverage, the second provides two sentences):
1. Chapman, Francesca (1991-06-26). "Kyw Imports Canadian Anchor Hire Is The Latest Move At City's 3rd-place Station". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
2. Zerbisias, Antonia (1991-06-18). "This day, Alison Smith moves on". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15. Anchors Away: CFTO's Jennifer Ward had a big send-off last Friday after anchoring her last Newsbeat Today. As tipped here, Ward has landed a juicy, six-figure job at NBC's KYW-TV in Philadelphia
In addition to Tchaliburton (talk · contribs)'s sources (1^WebCite, 2^WebCite, 3^WebCite) and Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s good work on the article, this should be kept.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jennifer Ward to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2014 (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.