Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Krop (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Krop[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially slanted WP:BLP of a person notable only as a single-market television journalist. The sole source here is an article in her alma mater's alumni magazine, which is (a) deadlinked, (b) not widely distributed enough to singlehandedly carry WP:GNG as an article's only source, (c) not a fully independent source, and (d) being cited only to support that she's occasionally had bit parts in TV and film playing a fictionalized version of herself. Sourcing (and neutrality) repair might be possible here, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the article actually sees enough improvement to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST and/or WP:GNG, but nothing in this résumé-like article entitles her to an exemption from having to be sourced properly. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local TV journalists are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending sources. Looks like the article hasn't been updates since about 2008, and it survived an AfD 10 years ago. THough my position is opposite of Bearcat's, I share his desire to see someone do some research here. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's sourcing and inclusion standards have evolved significantly since 2008, and with very good reason are now much stricter than they used to be — and consensus can change. So what happened in an AFD eight years ago is in no way controlling on what has to happen now; an article has to meet much stricter quality standards to be kept in 2016 than it used to. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After some digging, I think there is enough sources to keep the article. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3]. It is also telling how she receives coverage in both Canadian and American news articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are sources that would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after WP:GNG had already been met by stronger sources — The Georgia Straight is an alt-weekly, and both BC Living and BC Business are web magazines with no substantively non-local readership — but none of them are in the class of sourcing that can carry the passage of GNG by themselves if they're the best you can do. And you say she "receives coverage in...American news articles", but you haven't shown any evidence of that (I suspect that you merely misunderstood the geographic implications of the name "Georgia Straight" — it's named for the Strait of Georgia that separates Vancouver City from Vancouver Island, not for the US state.) Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in-depth here and here and in-depth here (and there are many others) -- which show that she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bearcat, Montanabw, and TheGracefulSlick: Have you seen Tomwsulcer's sources? Do these change your votes? Possibly final required relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. She also has had a number of cameos in films such as X-Men. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameoing in films doesn't confer notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, except that celebrities, even minor celebrities, are often invited to do such walk-ons because they are audience-pleasers, Bernie Sanders did one once, and I once saw Barney Frank walk on as a Congressman in Fiorello! - very cool.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources brought during this debate do establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2016 (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.