Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd 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 keep. There is a consensus here that the sources provided by Cirt are sufficient to establish notability. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rodriguez[edit]

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

Essentially the subject of the article received passing mentions in the press in the summer of 2005 for her appearances with Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise. The coverage was more or less celebrity gossip stories which mention her briefly with no significant coverage about Rodriguez. At the time, Cruise and Holmes were being discussed widely in the media. Otherwise Rodriguez's name appears occasionally in press release type statements as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology. Again, there is no real coverage of her in these news articles beyond mentioning her name in passing. I was ready to speedy delete the article because I don't really see a claim for notability. But I noticed that it had prior Afd. So here we are.... FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to searches for "Jessica Rodriguez" [1], and "Jessica Feshbach Rodriguez" [2] [3], there are WP:RS sources under other search terms, including "Jessica Feshbach" [4], and "Jessica Davis" [5], and additionally received coverage in meeting as official representative of Scientology organization, for example when celebrity member Larry Anderson attempted to request to get his money back [6] [7]. I will get started on improving the article. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Improvements to the article currently ongoing. I will post updates here. Will start by going through some source research, and probably do a rewrite using WP:RS secondary sources, from scratch on the article page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing exists, although I wouldn't be opposed to an editorial merge to a list of scientology officials. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen a source that does more than mention her in passing? And have you found a reliable source about her status as a high official in Scientology? The Fox News article couches their claim by saying it comes from unnamed groups that monitor CoS. That is hardly a reliable source for documenting someones position. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the page to "Jessica Feshbach" from "Jessica Rodriguez", it seems per most recent WP:RS secondary source coverage that this is the name used for this individual [8]. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay, I have expanded and sourced the page a bit, see changes - compare prior version before sourcing efforts [9], and current version, post research and expansion [10]. Still in the process of doing some additional research on the subject. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cirt has addressed any doubts as to notability (even if overkill), though perhaps original article was questionable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the complaints in the nomination have now been thoroughly addressed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:50, 20 October 2010 (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.