Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Markell


 * 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   delete.  Wifione  Message 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Adding additional comments on the request of Hobit) There have been AfDs in the past where while I have closed the AfD as a delete because of the editors' views within the AfD, my personal bent in reality would have had been to keep the article. This AfD is clearly nothing close to that. I do have to mention that a majority of the editors commenting in this AfD have gotten it spot on that this BLP is based significantly on unreliable sources, those with little editorial oversight, and those with an open non-neutral bent of publishing (right wing/religious...) - and then there are some sources that mention the individual in the passing. In other words, almost none of the sources come up to clear-cut BLP or BIO requirements; using such sources to support a BLP's claim on either GNG or related notability guidelines would go against policy. The comments of editors supporting delete have therefore been accepted by me. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jan Markell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet general notability guidelines, her bio and claim of writing is from or copied from her own websites Wilbered (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a notable person. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No real claim of notability. --Kylfingers (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep She's seen significant reporting from two sides.  For example, Mother Jones, and "One News Now"  and .  Hobit (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why she's not notable. She would seem to easily (easily) meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then, why don't you provide some published sources to back up your claims? If she is so notable there should be books, journal articles, etc backing up this article, there are none and all I can find are the self-published variety.  Unlike some people, I actually try to find sources before I vote in on a piece, if I can't find any:then I vote, if I can find them, I fix it.  So I don't see how this person meets GNG unless being a self-published author and Blogger meets those guidelines.  Again, you have what looks like sources in your vote above, why not put on your thinking cap and format them and get them into the article?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I feel I did provide sources above (Mother Jones, etc.) Plus there are some sources in the article.  It is unclear what issue you have with the sources as you simply say "non-notable". Hobit (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The one's I've seen are selfpublished blogs, the ones listed aren't exactly shitting tiffany cufflinks, either. If you feel what you have is reliable, why not post it in the article?  They're not doing any good here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, people would notice the ones here and take them into account when discussing the article. Mother Jones is certainly reliable and I think the other ones I listed are too (though highly biased of course).  Hobit (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting response, so you think she's notable, but don't really care enough to attempt to fix the article? Can't say that will change my decision.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, though I'll point out the deletion discussion is supposed to be about the topic, not the article (WP:DEL). I started this my simply saying that your WP:JNN !vote doesn't seem to hold up given that there are plenty of sources and thus she meets WP:GNG.  You've not really addressed that point, which is certainly your right. You didn't say anything about the sources in the article other than that they are "self-published blogs", which I don't actually believe to be true of the sources I've looked at.   would imply otherwise for at least the sources I provided.  Do you have a reason to believe that they are SP blogs?  Can you identify which sources you have doubts about (in the article or provided by me as you wish). Hobit (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference number 2:Right Wing Watch, is a blog with no editorial oversight. Reference number 3 is a self-written author splash page that should be checked for verifiability.  Reference number 4, while a decent source does not support the claim the article makes and really just serves as a source to a quote by Michelle Bachmann on the subject's show.  I know amateur MMA fighters with more media coverage than this person based on the sources in the article and even what you have listed.  As the article stands, it is a perfect example of a poorly sourced piece.  Bare URL's tell the reader jack shit about the context, as well.  In the searches I've attempted to find sources for this person all I see are self-published sources and blogs; no other coverage.  I recently ran into this with another article for deletion: Jimmy Aikin, a Catholic apologist who is used by the MSM as a source on Catholic Dogma.  He's the head of Apologetics for Catholic Answers, appears on EWTN, and many Catholic radio programs.  He has authored 2 or 3  books and initially I thought it was a no-brainer...he's notable.  However, after I took steps to repair the article all the sources I found were like the ones used here: self-published, or blogs; so I went back and changed my vote.  If you can't be bothered to put your money where your mouth is and fix the article with your sources, why should I or anyone else vote to keep it?  Seriously.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Humm, you and I both got here because there was an AfD. Are you arguing that anyone who finds sources needs to add them, but those that want to delete don't need to lift a finger?  An odd viewpoint.  I personally don't care about the subject or the article, I do however see that the subject meets our inclusion guildlines.  There are apparently 5 solid sources (1 which you raided no objection to and 4 which clearly discusses the subject even if you don't feel it supports the article as cited) and 3 that I provided...  Do you feel that the subject meets the GNG?  Do you feel anyone !voting to keep needs to improve the article? I imagine such a restriction would create a lot more deleted articles... Hobit (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my standard, it may not be wikis and it's obviously not yours. No offense, but I don't believe I've ever seen you edit anything; then again I don't use wiki as a social network so you probably don't see me weighing in on too many discussions. If some troll is shitting over an article I've worked on, I make sure there are reliable sources in there.  As for the first source or reference 1, that won't even load up for me..so if you want to keep a stroke tally then mark it null in your ledger.  I guess I should have mentioned it, I'll try typing slower (that's a joke, I used to assume people got jokes on here, but apparently some don't and my smilies look like sanskrit to the Europeans).  Reference 4 is not a suitable source for this article, it does not support the claim made and what it could source is not represented here.  I'm taking your 3 on good faith, but maybe now I'll go and look at them.edited to add OK, the Mother Jones link is similar to the #4 link in the article, it says she interviewed Bachmann. ( Can I get a wiki article about me because I interviewd Ken Shamrock before a fight and another website quoted my interview?)  Your number 2 doesn't load, either and I suspect it's the same as #1 in the article.  I would never use whatever that third link is because it is not a reliable source, really is that the best you can do?  Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and kind of disagree with you on this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't edit a lot of articles, but I do try to hunt down sources.  It's what I enjoy.  I hope you enjoy the things you do.  Best of luck!  Hobit (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hobit's editing pattern is certainly atypical, but still has 854 edits in article space. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Since I do not have access to radio programme broadcast by (or for) her, I cannot judge her notability. HOw widely is she broadcast? How large is the listenership?
 * Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT, the two notability criteria that seem to most closely apply to radio personalities. The article content as written list two markets where her show is broadcast, but despite the size of those markets, that hardly describes significant or notable listenership. Were her show to be carried, for example, by Sirius/XM satellite radio, or have ratings data showing a large market share in the timeslot, that would be prima facie evidence of notability...something that is lacking as the article stands. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2011 (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.