Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Jaffe


 * 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. Based on Cowlibob's sources. The present stub is sufficient as a basis for later expansion.  Sandstein  07:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Andrea Jaffe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG and NACTOR (tangentially related to NACTOR, that's probably the closest specific notability guideline) Being mentioned at the Oscars on its own isn't enough. South Nashua (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails NACTOR and GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree the article is poor in representing her notability. As a publicist she is unlikely to have appeared much in the media talking about herself. When she died, Jaffe got an article in The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Deadline. [], [], []. She was named as a top publicist in this 1991 article Entertainment Weekly article [], and this 1991 Los Angeles Times article []. After her PR time she also became the head of marketing for all domestic films for 20th Century Fox. The New York Observer back when it was a broadsheet wrote an article on her []. I think there is enough evidence that she was a prominent publicist/ marketing figure within Hollywood so should be notable for an article. Cowlibob (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, Cowli. I'm not an expert in this area, so I appreciate your insight here. If you can clean this article up, I'll withdraw my nomination. South Nashua (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources Cowlibob provided are quite adequate for her to warrant an article Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Soft Delete There is probably a lot to be done on this article, I wish people would learn to write it completely in their sandbox before releasing a stub. I think it should be deleted for now, and try again when someone takes the time to do it right. Once the article is fleshed out, then we will be in a better position to judge. Cowlibob if you have the sources then please add them in.Sgerbic (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.