Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Jerome


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Gillian Jerome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, with some advertorial edges to it, of a writer whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and/or the self-published websites of professional colleagues and an organization she's directly affiliated with -- and it also significantly pads out its sourcing by coatracking and referencing highly digressionary content about her husband and the organization, as well as non-notable public readings in her own home town and a section that, until I poleaxed it, listed and "referenced" every single work by some other writer that Jerome ever reviewed for a literary journal. As always, however, you don't demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you demonstrate a writer as notable by referencing the article to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people. Of the 51 footnotes here, I count literally just three that actually represent reliable source media outlets that are fully independent of Jerome herself -- but of those three, one just namechecks her existence a single time as the provider of a statistic in an article that's in no way about her otherwise, one represents a book review in her local alt-weekly, and the third is about her winning a literary award on the second tier of notability: notable enough to be mentioned in an article that's already well-sourced, but not notable enough to bestow the writer's notability all by itself if it's the only properly sourced notability claim the writer actually has. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to write and reference an article about Jerome properly -- but the sourcing here isn't remotely acceptable, and the article body doesn't say anything about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced much, much better than this. I'm also okay with draftifying per Shalor's request below. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! If possible, can this be transferred back into the student's userspace if this is deleted via AfD so they can work on the issues you've brought up here? I'll work with them on the article while it's live, of course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be entirely acceptable as well. I've added support for that to my original statement. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Contributors can copy the text from the edit page and work on the text in order to re-submit it, if they gather enough evidence for notability. Thus far, this is one of the relatively rare instances of a text with obviously lots of good work (I try not to use the term "work of love") in it, about a subject that, however, try as the contributors might, has not yet established WP:GNG, nor does it meet WP:ARTIST. Here's hoping. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just wanted to make a quick mention that I've made mention of this at Women in Red to see if they can help with the tone and sourcing, along with the work the student is doing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - for now. What's the urgency on deletion? This being part of a student project, and currently being edited by several people trying to bring it up to code, It won't hurt to wait on this.  Wikipedia isn't going to be damaged if we allow the student, instructor, and other editors a little time to get this up to at least a basic framework of what it should be. — Maile  (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this AfD nomination acts as a wake up call to whomever is interested in working on the article (and establishing notability), then that would be a most welcome outcome, too. Every AfD nomination is presumably submitted on good faith and under house rules. "What's the urgency," you ask? And "where is the harm"? I'm sure you mean well but those questions are a bit surprising (especially coming from an administrator). This is a community of volunteers, taking off time to do encyclopaedic work; keeping Wikipedia clean is part of the work. In my view, if the interested editors do not make haste, the deletion could go through because "temporarily unworthy" articles are not allowed in Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to have received nominations and awards for her work over the years. Her poems have been mentioned in a book. I think this person passes WP:AUTHOR because her works have "won significant critical attention." Lonehexagon (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: on the basis of the ReLit award and nomination for the 2010 Dorothy Livesay Poetry Prize. But the article needs further attention as indicated above.--Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: ReLit award, founder of CWILA, seems notable enough. Pam  D  08:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But needs willing eyes to check for inaccuracy, sloppy cut-and-paste, etc - see talk page. And it appears that an instructor has set a 2,000 word target for the students' contributions: just the way to encourage bloated writing, addition of irrelevances, stretching of sources, etc. Not helpful. Pam  D  09:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It's improving and she possibly scrapes through WP:GNG with the award. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A literary award is not an automatic GNG pass in and of itself — it's the depth and volume and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support a notability claim, not the claim itself, that determines whether GNG is passed or not. The ReLit Award is, in reality, an award whose reliable source coverage is spotty at best: sometimes you can find enough sourcing to get a ReLit winner or nominee over GNG, and sometimes you can't. So it's a second-tier literary award for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR: notable enough to count if the article can be well-sourced, but not "inherently" notable enough to count as a guarantee of a Wikipedia article without regard to sourceability issues. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Update. The WikEd consultant has worked with the creator to improve the article — while it does still need some more work before it could be assessed as a good article, there are enough properly reliable sources now to cover off the reason why I listed this for AFD in the first place. Accordingly, I'm withdrawing this nomination and just tagging the article for maintenance. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.