Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose Simon (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 Speedy Delete per WP:G5 -- article created by sock of banned account (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musiclovereveryday). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose Simon[edit]

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

Declined a G4 speedy request because this version includes more substantial sources that are more than just passing mentions. However, this appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT, in that all her notability comes from a single viral drawing. Taking to AfD for more eyes -- I'm a weak delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT certainly applies. Honestly, I think that G4 probably still applies (but as I'm not privy to the original page, I can't say for certain). The sources aren't anything that wasn't available at the time of the original discussion, and the concerns are the same. I think that G5 will ultimately apply as well, but that investigation is pending. agtx 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:GNG. Has significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. She was featured on Good Morning America. The only way this wouldn't merit an article is if Good Morning America is fake news. It is not. Agtx should refrain from randomly nominating articles for deletion. It's a pure waste of good time. Thank you. –Tankertime13 (talk) 10:37 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sock of blocked user. agtx 15:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. We don't include people because they got 15 minutes of fame around one specific thing. Re: the GMA appearance: that's an interview and counts as a primary source, which means it wouldn't be considered when we are assessing under the GNG anyway. Our notability requirements for biographies require that someone show coverage over an extended period of time in secondary sources that are intellectually independent of themselves. We simply don't have it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources to meet GNG and the interview may be a primary source, but it is an independent third-party coverage as well, so it can be used to assess notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SIGCOV, GNG requires secondary sourcing: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. If we accepted primary sources such as interviews as evidence of notability, then every person who appears on GMA would be all but guaranteed a spot, because the major morning shows typically have spotted them on some other program (radio interview, etc.) Most people who appear on Good Morning America are not notable and don't have entries precisely because we require all of the sourcing to be secondary for notability purposes: most US morning shows don't feature notable people. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete largely per WP:TOOSOON. Coverage appears to primarily refer to one specific drawing that went viral in social media. The rest [1] seems to be standard publicity that isn't sufficient for WP:GNG power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep found CNN article where they talked about her this year. WP:GNG - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.199.10.20 (talk) — 174.99.10.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Same as above, this BIO1E. Also note for the closing admin that this AfD has already seen socking, so this could be another. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (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.