Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Hansen

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. Majority of editors argue that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hansen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article used to be rather shoddy, but it's been improved and a PROD declined. But, even now, I still believe that the subject falls short of GNG. The following sources are used in the article and none of them are independent or constitute sigcov: her personal website, an interview, ~~a 2006 press release about her leaving an employer~~, a more detailed release about her joining a new firm, the website of her radio show and a story about her husband. A WP:BEFORE search lets me think that the editors already got the most out of these sources. I understand that she must be fairly well-known, but I don't believe WP:JOURNALIST is met either. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to having enough sourcing to show that she is a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Johnpacklambert - can you please say why? This is a really unhelpful contribution. Deus et lex (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two versions in the history of this article: a version created in March 2007, when referencing standards were extremely lax, which by 5 June 2011 had acquired one good reference (The Age, a major newspaper) and received the first of a series of edits by a probable COI editor (user name is the same as a product she was selling at the time). By November 2020 it had accrued a second decent reference (Radio Today, which appears to be a broadcasting news site) and was PRODded by KidAd on notability grounds and deleted. It was recreated a couple of days ago by Celco85, whose last version was this after a rejected speedy deletion nomination by Sonofstar on notability grounds and a PROD by the nominator on notability grounds, which I removed while expanding the article using the two sources Celco85 had included (one of which, Melbourne My Style, they had at a search URL), the two from previous versions that had been undeleted after I inquired on an admin's page as to whether the page was a recreation (it is not), and others I found by searching, including using information from the older article, which had much more information about her career. I reject the nominator's assertion that all the sources are connected to the subject: The Age is not; while Radio Today draws on a news release, it is clearly not a regurgitation—look at how it goes on to report on the person leaving the position; nor is the Sydney Morning Herald, another respected newspaper. The article in that last is primarily about her husband, but used in the article for information about her: her novel, for biographic completeness (I found no citable reviews, but it was published by a reputable publisher), and her private life (husband, children). The remainder are non-independent but none is a press release and all used minimally to fill out the article: her personal biography for her birthplace, school, and major in university (other sources also mention the university); her current employer to support the 3rd-person source on that point; and the Melbourne My Style, some sort of society/human interest website, is an interview, but provides useful biographical references, including her further education. I imagine there are other news reports from the start and end of her Ten News stint: I did not find the two formerly cited sources in my initial search, I found some fluff pieces that I did not use (notably an interview that appears on peterbannan.com and appears to be recycled from newsbytesonline in 2014), and all I found on Trove was a 1994 case in which she denied involvement, but the sources we are now using, and the sources I rejected except for those reports on Trove, all present her as a well-known news presenter, and co-anchoring a network's evening news program in a major region is a significant position in her field. So my primary argument for notability is GNG, but secondly I think she also has a claim as prominent by virtue of that 10-year position. In particular, the older version was an old article presenting a noted career that should have been tagged as requiring more sources; it amply suggested notability, but was woefully under-sourced (and the business does not appear to have attracted independent coverage, so I did not reinsert that in the article.) I believe my sourced expansion shows that she squeaks by, and that Australian editors can probably find older news reports that are not online, but not yet old enough to be in Trove's archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me admit that I misjudged the article in The Age; it is not a basic press release and I'll make sure to strike that part from the nomination. I do concur with your statement that she is a well-known news presenter and I don't doubt that there is lot's of verifiable biographical information about her, which could and is being used in her article. Where we disagree is the content of WP:GNG: to convince me that she meets the guideline all that is needed are two pieces in reliable publications which are substantial enough and clearly independent. If we allow that the piece in The Age is in this category, we are still lacking that second source. The Radio Today article is not sufficient, given that it has press release-character and that much of it is taken up by direct quotations of the subject. Of course, there is still WP:JOURNALIST. You seem to suggest the she meets criterion 4 (it could also be 3) by virtue of [her] 10-year position. If I am correct in thinking that you aim at No. 4 or 3, yours is a rather loose interpretation of these criteria. I know of many people who appear on TV and have been around for decades, some of them write books and act in films. Therefore, I fail to see what makes Jennifer Hansen more notable than the countless other minor celebrities in the media. (I think this question is at the core of WP:JOURNALIST.) Only after the notability of a subject is established should we attempt to fill their article with information. Your comment argues for the existence of verifiable content (which, I agree, is fundamentally important) and glosses over how exactly she meets WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. A case in point is the Sydney Morning Herald article. Yes, it comes from a reliable source and is independent. But the subject is only mentioned in passing, which means that it does not have much merit for assessing her notability measured against GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. KidAd talk 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. The article meets WP:GNG. The sources in the article (except for her personal website) show that there is significant and independent coverage of her. The Age article is indepedent and substantial. The Radio Today article is independent - the fact that it quotes the subject does not make it unreliable - as Yngvadottir says it goes beyond that. Deus et lex (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page seems OK to me. I have added a few new facts and citations (via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspapers) which should help. Cabrils (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. The article has improved and further references added since first presented. Fleet Lists (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having enough references to pass WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:47, 13 January 2021 (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.