Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee (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. Although the additional sources and improvements have not convinced everyone, it is clear that the debate has changed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Nicole Lee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable 'celebrity'. Article has been deleted once before - see Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee. Borderline claim to notability, and the sources listed are sketchy at best. This website also indicates that the woman's PR agency are offering free gifts to anyone who edits the article, a crass violation of the conflict of interest policy, and tantamount to paid editing. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable person, creating user's entire history consists of three edits to this page. Frmatt (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Having seen Fred's links, and Sinneed's offer to incorporate them, I am changing my vote. Fred is obviously a much better searcher than I am! Frmatt (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Suggest speedy close and protect. With the rewards posted, it will just be created again.-  Sinneed  19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am happy to build in the sources found by Fred .Frank (Thanks Frank) They seem more than adequate to show notability... but I fail at searches. I types pretty good thow. (sic) -  Sinneed  20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added her book and one of her videos to source the lead bits showing what she does that *MIGHT* make her notable. This does NOT show notability... just gives us sources for statements.  I still stay with Delete.-  Sinneed  19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, my searches show she has been on Oprah... I just don't see anything reliable yet. She really does have an IMDB profile and credits... it was just borked in the article.  I have fixed it.  I have a personal Oprahtest... if Oprah invites someone to her show that is a huge bump in notability-credibility (for me, not WP, just saying).-  Sinneed  19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This article needs major help, no doubt about it, but I must reluctantly opine weak say Keep because there are hits in independent sources, and her book is available for pre-order. Plus she apparently won some bikini contests, so there's always that bit of notability :-) We should caution COI contributors against WP:PEACOCK and remind them of WP:CITE, however. Frank  |  talk  19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources to verify or establish notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good job Sinneed and Frank in rescuing the article. Reliable Sources establish notability--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Her book may meet the base criteria for inclusion when it is released but currently there is nothing to suggest notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * snowball delete per lack of reliable sources, maybe salt to thwart the PR agency. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Frmatt; protection probably not necessary if the subject will attain notability in the near future. No prejudice against recreation with proper sources. Glass  Cobra  19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't meet notability standards, and few, if any, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - also note that some of the article is a copyvio of the PR page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at the "lack of sources" arguments I'm seeing here. I've only linked ones that are freely available; there are plenty more, plus her book which I linked above. I agree the canvassing and practically-paid editing are reprehensible, but that doesn't argue against her notability. Frank  |  talk  20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Frank a bit here, there are some OKish sources. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And four DVDs too... Frank  |  talk  20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - already have one of the DVDs in the article... but that helps with facts (is an actress/model), not with notability. The other stuff helps with that.-  Sinneed  20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Frank, I've checked LexisNexis, and it seems to think that most of those sources are 'pay for an article' sources, sadly. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're going with that. I provided links above that are all freely available. However, it isn't a requirement that sources be publicly available with no impediment to access in order to consider them suitable, reliable sources. I just linked them because they are easy to click and to provide quick evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are most definitely more sources that aren't PR sources but are in non-publicly available places. They only strengthen the notability argument. Frank  |  talk  21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should be clearer: not 'pay to view the article' sources, but 'pay to have an article (which your company has written) published' sources - borderline self-published sources. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reuters, Daily News (New York), CBS News, and SmartMoney? Frank  |  talk  21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reuters? *cough* - I just don't see a notability issue at this point. I have the youtube Oprah and such... these show clear notability, as I see it. We can't put them in the article (well I won't, I have copyright concerns), but they are there. The problem I had before was I could see her fans yapping about these things... but not the things. I think the main problem is going to be to keep the paid editor fluff out. I am substantially @#$%ed at the promo.  (edit conflict)-  Sinneed  21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent):Comment - OK, rework done... built-in some sources... though I left the eBooks in and did not source them... they each have their own sites which are also sales sites and some have ANNOYING sound-tracks. These can be sourced if needed but... why? I don't think the names of the ebooks are going to be disputed.- Sinneed  22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per terrific work by Frank during the course of this AfD. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non notable person. The numerous edits show that the Wikipedia page is used for promotion only with "gifts" being offered by third parties for editing the wikipedia page. Deletion is the way to resolve the conflict.Kerr avon (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The non-notable horse is very dead, please see the article, and above.- Sinneed  04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fundamental issue is that this wikipedia article is being abused by people to get higher search engine hits by adding links, getting incentives for adding dubious content etc with rewards being offered openly for editing it by promotional agencies. This makes it difficult to identify editors motives regarding this article. One method is outright permanent speedy deletion of the article, I am sure that the world want fall down cause wikipedia is missing her biography, but its important for wikipedia to avoid the issue of being used as a promotional tool. The second alternative would be long term semi protection.Kerr avon (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we killed articles because they attract problematic edits the Encyclopedia would be pretty quiet, but much smaller. I have built whole articles by picking up debris from edit wars: Rama Nand, South Asia Terrorism Portal. You might join the semiprotection discussion on the talk page, or even comment on the topic at ANI.  As to the promo-pagelinks... they are being killed out pretty quickly. I suppose the blog at AOL may be getting a few hits... but I really expect one of the other editors to kill that.  None of that seems to speak to deletion, only editor workload.-  Sinneed  04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The debate here should be about notability. Suggesting that the article be speedily deleted or deleted through AFD because of the promotional editors is flawed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: People are welcome to make money flogging ebooks and DVDs telling people how they became less fat, but until the method, the fat loss, the ebooks, the DVDs or the profits verifiably get more than token mentions in newsapers or similar, such people and their enterprises don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. (And although Hill of beans records has an [unreferenced] article, Hill of beans does not.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The mentions in newspapers above and in the article are definitely "more than token". Frank  |  talk  13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One source, the Reuters story "Busy moms can get physical with new DVD series", is cited five times. But actually it's not really a Reuters story, it's a Reuters recycling of a Hollywood Reporter story. This story lazily and credulously repackages PR guff for the product, and much of the content about Lee comes straight out of the mouth of one "Dan Gurlitz, GM of Port Washington, N.Y.-based Koch", Koch being the outfit hawking the DVDs. Underwhelming. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * wp:BLP, wp:SELFPUB - the sources seem to be used appropriately. Clearly the self-published sources do not establish notability, and I don't think anyone here is claiming they do.  The number of times a ref is used has nothing to do with anything except article layout... it is one source.  I don't see a reason for deletion in your post, Hoary.-  Sinneed  22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong at all about using a single source for five or even ten or twenty assertions. That wasn't my point, and I apologize for poor phrasing that suggested that it was my point. Rather, I was underwhelmed by the mass media coverage of this person, who's in the kind of business that normally gets a large amount of attention (and disproportionately so, in my irrelevant and perhaps worthless opinion). Lacking the energy to go through the list of references cum profiles in the mass media, I picked on the one that was used more (five times) than any other. And it turned out to be pretty feeble stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Based on improvements since nomination. This article is crying out for a pic, tho. --Milowent (talk) 17:58, 26 October 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.