Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Kajzer


 * 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. WP:BLPs are NOT a vote, and this clearly does not have multiple non-trivial sources on the subject. There's one, arguably trivial, source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Kajzer

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

Non-notable NY-area disk jockey, no reliable sources proffered, no elements of WP:BIO fulfilled. Google turns up only 37 hits, despite subject's claim to be very well known in the Tristate heavy metal scene, and no sources turning up are indepth and about the subject, as WP:RS requires. WP:COI issues, as the creator seems to be Kajzer herself, as shown by this diff. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Bwrs (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject has been the focus of at least some coverage in reliable secondary sources and garnered significant mention in more wide-ranging articles so notability and verifiability are now largely covered. I have added references, formatting, fixed links, and cleaned up the article a bit so a second look may now be in order. (It could use expansion, especially for her long stint at WSOU rising from student to business manager but that's an issue for another time.) Google turns up just 72 hits for "Jennifer Kajzer" but 240+ for "Jen Kajzer" which is how she was known for at least a portion of her broadcast career and is the name she uses on her newspaper column. - Dravecky (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You've listed eight references. The first is a satellite radio schedule with her name on it (which given that she seemingly no longer appears on that station, doesn't say much for their updating).  The second is an article about her college radio station that quotes her twice, among several other alumni.  The third is an article from her college newspaper discussing her replacement as business manager for that station.  The fourth is her self-written bio on her current station website.  The fifth, sixth and seventh cites quote press releases about the hiring of another fellow that mention in passing, among other things, that Kajzer works at that station.  The eighth is her classmates.com profile.  The only independent, indepth source that's even close to being about Kajzer is the one from her college newspaper.  Nor are any other good references in the 41 Google hits I find for "Jen Kazjer"  ... I'm not sure how you get 240+, except by not straying off the first place of hits.  In any event, WP:V requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Without such sources, it would be very hard to argue she clears WP:BIO.    RGTraynor  16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, only the one in-depth article truly speaks to notability. I was trying to lay useful groundwork for another editor with more specific knowledge of the subject to be able to expand or better reference the article. Oh, and you're right, it's not 240--it's merely 239 hits on the Google for "Jen Kajzer". - Dravecky (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The one indepth article does speak to notability, but possibly not in the way you'd prefer; generally speaking, officers in collegiate clubs are not notable. As far as the G-hits go, you're still showing poor methodology.  Don't look at the first page.  Look at every page, and you'll find only 37-40 hits referenced.    RGTraynor  11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Article would benefit from expansion and additional sources, which might be possible if AfD was not initiated so quickly after article creation. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The AfD runs, as far as I can figure, for four more days. That is more than ample time to secure sources that pass WP:RS, which so far only one (possibly) does.    RGTraynor  06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There are plenty of references, some with dubious importance (first time I've seen classmates.com used as a reference) but WP:BIO takes more than that. No indication that this radio personality is known outside of the New York area. --Rtphokie (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - there needs to be serious revamping of the AFD system. Some reporters are kept and are just as notable or non-notable as Jen.  This becomes a game of how many fans the reporter or disc jocket has and how many enemies they have.  For fairness, a person of this stature should be kept for consistency and because there are a few references for the lady. Presumptive (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Other stuff exists isn't a good reason to keep an article. If there are other articles with similar notability issues, I encourage you to start discussions about them as well.  There is a common confusion that AFD is a process which can be defeated by finding a few references in Google news, it's not, particularly with biographies.  WP:BIO is looking for significant coverage of a person who is recognized in their field.  Awards can really help make the case here.  I've not found any for this person.  The depth of coverage doesn't appear to be significant.  "Insert Name of DJ is working at Insert New Station, they used to work at Insert Old Station" articles are very commonplace and often come straight from press releases from the station, which doesn't help the notability cause.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as passes WP:BIO. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know I've asked you this question a number of times before, but which elements of WP:BIO do you believe she fulfills?   RGTraynor  23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple references in diverse sources. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Heck, that would even fail the one quasi-good source we have; it would be difficult to claim that the college newspaper of which Kajzer was the business manager constituted an independent source.    RGTraynor  03:29, 19 June 2008 (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.