Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Whalen (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen

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

This was closed as no consensus in 2011. I think by now our standards for this sort of bio are clearer, and we tend to interpret notability in thisparticular line of work rather narrowly now. The sources are almost entirely her writings, and I doubt there is a true indication she's considered notable by reliable sources. (the "career" paragraph is of course just pretend-personal promotional writing, but it could be removed if she is actually notable ) DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the cusp of notability. The cited Boston Globe article is behind a paywall but is clearly a reliable article substantially about Whalen. I can't read the cited WSJ article, but it's less obviously about her. Are Inc. (magazine) or about.com considered reliable sources, because both have cited coverage? I'm not sure if this podcast on Forbes.com is a reliable source[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (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) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Inc.com should be considered a reliable source since it's affiliated with an established magazine. But keep in mind that the subject is an SEO consultant; since it's her job to enable things to be promoted on the Internet, we shouldn't have to scrounge to find information about her if she really is notable. We ought to be able to find it wherever we look. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:50, 26 April 2012 (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.