Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Fran (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Jan Fran
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is self promotional. Wikipedia is not a self promotional medium. I came across this article by chance while googling a podcast was surprised to find this person had a dedicated Wikipedia article. On reading it I felt it should be deleted before noticing it had already been nominated. It is no coincidence that other editors felt the same.

A developing media career with a few mentions in domestic media and a nomination for an award does not constitute notability.

Note the final sentence in the article "She has also challenged the different ways in which the perpetrators of the Christchurch mosque shootings and the Orlando nightclub shooting were described and presented by the media.[11]". The author is stretched for references to justify notability - that reads like filler text in a essay which hasn't quite achieved the word count requirement. That reference in particular is an obscure website featuring a short article with a video of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austroplatypus (talk • contribs) 06:30, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep To me the article is not self-promotional, and I find her far more notable than the myriad of sports people who are kept. As a notable person, it is helpful to have her story on wikipedia. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could use a bit of cleanup I suppose, but she's definitely notable enough. She hosted a daily news show on SBS for years and has subsequently made appearances on The Project, Hack and Q&A - surely that gives her enough reason to be on here?Prawn Skewers (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above comment. I came to Wikipedia specifically to find out more about Jan Fran.  That makes her notable enough.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.109.132 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP Of course she's notable and I came here to find out more about her. The delete proponent may well have an interest in suppressing socially progressive views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilimaniau (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time.   If you with to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO.  Thanks.  --Finngall talk  00:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The first AfD was closed as a "no consensus" as recently as 4 September. Reopening the debate now seems iffy procedure to me, particularly since the actual nomination was made barely a month later. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: based on references that are already in the article, the subject passes WP:GNG. Since the article is not egregious NPOV/promotion, we should keep and tag for NPOV since deletion is not cleanup for all purposes or all problems. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - she meets notability as per Prawn Skewers, and also procedurally on the basis that this is too soon after the original AfD. Bookscale (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep First, on procedural grounds, it's just too soon since the last deletion debate. Second, the sourcing in the article is already enough to support at least a decent case for wiki-notability. Third, when it comes to media figures, it's true that it can be hard to sift out the sources about them from those by them, but we serve the public by explaining who they are. Finally, I'd say that despite the nomination's assertion, the article is not written with a promotional tone, nor can I find any indication that it has been used for self-promotion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:BASIC, these three references listed in the article - "Why we need to start calling out sexual harassment", "Double standards of Western media outlets criticized after Christchurch terror attack", "'You have to see it to be it': Meet three women who are changing the face of Australian TV" are enough for notability, others ice the cake. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - yet another article in today's news about her. Bookscale (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; added to the article now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here to read about this person. Why would this be deleted? The argument that a wikipedia page is going to sway anyone to her legitimacy while I'm watching her on primetime TV right now is a bit unfeasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.0.233 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. I think the sources in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability per WP:BIO.  Edgeweyes (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2019 (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.