Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Griswold


 * 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. Research during the course of this discussion seems to have debunked most of the sourcing and left the consensus is that what remains does not establish notability. Shereth 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Griswold

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just because several references about a subject can be found and cited, does that make the person notable? This article is about a local newscaster who probably is unknown outside her viewing area. It includes such tidbits as "Before moving to the Twin Cities in 2006 she continuously monitored stories on the 5 Eyewitness News website as the news program caught her attention," "Growing up in a small town north of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and is used to the cold weather which is why she did not need to adjust to the weather of Minnesota," "She also has a pet cat that is named Athens," and "Jennifer updates her followers by posting at her twitter page." There is nothing relevant here at all. It sounds like a puff piece written by her publicist. MovieMadness (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not her pulicist, I edit thousands of miles away from the US. The article's composition came about the searches that were made, if it was too pleasant for some, I'm sorry but that was the referenced matierial. --TitanOne (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep because of some notability; however, needs serious cleanup. Lots of "Jennifer this" and "Jennifer that" sort of stuff. Suggest a thorough de-fluffing and some gratuitous stubbery. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't quite see the notability here. Local notability at best. Geschichte (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Insufficient notability and lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Over time we have kept more obscure articles with less notability. This individual appears in well respected media articles. If being the tagged as the 12th most eligible bachelorette in America by Forbes isn't notable enough, then why keep a massive list of porn stars who won the golden boner award? Sheeesh. --TitanOne (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Geschichte (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per TitanOne.  Royal broil  01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing I see differentiates her from the thousands of other local affiliate reporters around the US. She is simply someone doing their job and that job happens to be on camera. We can always expect trivial local stuff about appearences at Rotary luncheons or riding on a parade float, but in the end, trivia doesn't equal notability. And yes, Forbes is notable, but being in it because you are just a pretty unmarried woman sounds trivial to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to comment, if you say Forbes is not notable, then where would we rely on to get the Billionaires list, the SEC? If you say Forbes is not notable then were discreditting past wealth-achievements of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, etc. --TitanOne (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, what part of "And yes, Forbes is notable" made you think I said Forbes is not notable? I said her inclusion was trivial. Hell, the whole list would be trivial since it is sheer opinion of an authors who limited themselves to the cities on the companion list of best cities for singles. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Forbes mention is pretty trivial dontcha think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is pure fluff. It sounds like a Facebook page instead of an encyclopedia article. If you Google Jennifer Griswold, most of the hits don't even pertain to her. Saying she's notable primarily because she was named #12 on a list of America's Most Eligible Bachelorettes by Forbes suggests the 11 women who preceded her on the list should have articles too. I agree with the rationales offered by both the nominator and Niteshift36. And I definitely disagree with the argument "Over time we have kept more obscure articles with less notability." Wikipedia should eliminate garbage, not continue to add to it just because it already exists. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notabilty for several reasons.
 * 1) She hasn't received a notable award or honor (being designated a pretty unmarried woman, even by Forbes, doesn't count), nor has she been nominated for any.
 * 2) She has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field.
 * 3) None of the references cited indicate she is regarded as an important figure by her peers.
 * 4) She hasn't originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * 5) She doesn't appear to have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

It seems like TitanOne's primary reason for wanting to keep this article is the notability of Forbes, which doesn't necessarily make Griswold notable. According to Notability (people), '''When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.' In this case, the "single event" is being named #12 on a list of America's Most Eligible Bachelorettes by Forbes''. Looking at the magazine and the role it plays overall, this particular list is not highly significant at all and isn't even listed here.

Basically, Griswold is just one of thousands of women who report the news for their local TV stations. If she deserves an article, why not them? LargoLarry (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Did anyone who voted to keep this article because it has sources actually look at them? The way this article was written it looks like it has ten, but it really has only seven, and most of them aren't even valid.
 * is an article of a highly scientific nature. One of the authors was someone named Jennifer Griswold. It's obvious this is not the same Jennifer Griswold.
 * The same thing with . The Jennifer Griswold profiled here has a BS in Biotechnology from the Rochester Institute of Technology. She's not the same person.
 * The Internet Movie Database is referenced twice. Not only is IMDb is not considered a valid source by the Wikipedia Film Project, but if you look at it doesn't tell you anything about Jennifer Griswold other than the fact she plays herself in a faux semidocumentary horror film that hasn't been released, which means the film lacks notability.
 * Forbes.com is referenced twice, and all it proves is that she was #12 on their list of America's Most Eligible Bachelorettes, which isn't a significant achievement.
 * The KSTP-TV website is referenced twice. This is her biography, created by the station's publicity department and based on information she gave them, so it's not a valid source.
 * is a personal web page she created herself, so it's not a reliable source.
 * proves she went to the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. This does not make her notable.
 * Besides all the trivia in this article and the very sloppy researching, what bothers me is that the person who created it wrote, "In 2007, Jennifer Griswold was listed as Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minessota's most eligible bachelorette" which isn't even true. She was named #12 in America. Just because she was the first one on the list to be from St. Paul doesn't give someone the right to twist the facts and say she was #1 in St. Paul. This wasn't a list limited to St. Paul residents, it covered the entire country, so it's very misleading to say they named her #1 in St. Paul. It seems like an attempt to make her more notable than she actually is, and she isn't notable at all. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per deleters. The ISPs points about sourcing above are well made. That the scientific work of another Jennifer Griswold has been lumped on is especially concerning. but she isn't notable anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Largo Larry and 63.3.15.1, who gave very complete and sensible rationales for deleting this article. Good work, both of you, especially 63.3.15.1, who took the time to check out all the references and prove they were useless. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I appreciate 63.3.15.1's comments, but I would like to correct a couple of points. The citation to UWOsh.edu shows someone named Jennifer Griswold who graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh in 2008. Given the article subject's career, it is unlikely that 2008 was her college graduation year, and the article (and her television station's website) both say she went to the University of Wisconsin at Madison. So the cited source is apparently about a different person. Also, it is correct to say that Forbes listed her as the most eligible bachelorette in Minneapolis-St. Paul, but not that she was listed as the #12 bachelorette in America. Rather, Minneapolis-St. Paul was named the 12th best (actually, tied for 12th) city for singles in America, and she was chosen as the most eligible bachelorette from that area. Each city had only one representative listed by Forbes. On the other hand, the selection of the most eligible bachelorette was not exactly scientific. Here is how Forbes described it: We selected a "most eligible" bachelor and bachelorette for many of our cities. Like any such list, our picks are a bit subjective and somewhat eclectic. We started by getting nominations from locals and held a newsroom poll to determine the winners. We considered only public figures--which is why the list is heavy on athletes and news anchors--and which is also why your brother the charming and handsome surgeon didn't get chosen. To determine eligibility, we merely confirmed that our selections were not married. We did not check to see if they had a "serious" boyfriend or girlfriend. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the link to the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh was also incorrect, this means the only valid reference used for this article was Forbes, which I think should be enough reason to delete it. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Basically, the subject is a local television station news reporter -- not even an anchor of the news, just one of the reporters. She also played herself in a movie which has not been distributed yet, and was named her city's "most eligible bachelorette" in a magazine's newsroom poll which was slanted heavily toward television news personalities (see above comment). The claim that she is also a biochemist has been removed because it refers to a completely different person. I don't think that all of this adds up to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't find any proof that the Jennifer Griswold in The Poughkeepsie Tapes is the same Jennifer Griswold as this one, so I removed the mention of the film in the article. I think it's interesting that on her talk page TitanOne admits she created this article in order to nominate herself for a DYK. She says the reason "Sounds kind of shallow" and she's right. Her research was sloppy and she included a lot of trivia and several statements that can't be verified. This article actually qualified for speedy deletion! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This blog post indicates that this Jennifer Griswold is the one from The Poughkeepsie Tapes, for whatever that's worth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a personal blog considered a reliable source? If it is, I'll revert the information about the film. It still won't make her notable, since it never was released. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a lack of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources means she fails to cross the notability threshold. The sloppy nature of the original version of this article is also quite concerning but not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real coverage about this Jennifer Griswold to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2009 (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.