Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Abo


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Abo

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet GNG. Most of the refs are unreliable, not-independent, or do not provide significant coverage about her. There seems to be more written about her book than her as an author. MB 20:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MB 20:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To meet the criteria for WP:Author you need just ONE of: In this case she meets 1) as she is widely cited by peers. See here https://www.google.com/search?q=%22jessica+abo%22&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALiCzsZzRriK8T5IQkLieQElzpmzCWu1BA:1654720097876&ei=YQahYpeGNYPrtAbbrLToCw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjXuovd2J74AhWDNc0KHVsWDb0Q8NMDegQIARBP&biw=1920&bih=929&dpr=1
 * Keep With all due respect to the nominator, WP:GNG is not the correct citation, it is WP:AUTHOR.
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
 * 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
 * 4) The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

She meets 3) as many articles in the sources cite her work. PaulPachad (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: PaulPachad (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.


 * Please look higher up in WP:BASIC where it discusses notability by restating GNG, and then says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included regarding the author additional criteria. My assessment stands.MB 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Minor mention in Forbes and another one in Ms magaazine  are about as good as I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a "major role", she's basically a motivational speaker. Nothing revolutionary. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added new references to ABC news, good morning america, and DC's CBS affiliate. In total there are now strong references from ABC, KTLA, Forbes, Ms Magazine, WUSA9 (CBS) Fast Company, and ABC7 NY. In my opinion, I believe it clearly passes WP:GNG. I also do not think its accurate to say "most of the references are not reliable". Thank you to all editors for your kind consideration. PaulPachad (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest Keeping the article to see how things develop. I won't personally vote as someone notified by PP on the name of the article in AfD.  Just on the basis that I know Paul as a positive force in the encyclopaedia and suggest going with it.  Maybe the recent changes may be enough to save the article in their own right.  Otherwise, editors don't always get much for their work.  This might be something.  At least, leave it for ~a few years to what develops.  GregKaye 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how the AfD process works at all. – The Grid  ( talk )  23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The refs provided are refspam at most. – The Grid  ( talk )  23:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Citation counts for authors, refers to their use in academic publications. In this case, the citation count is zero as Abo is not cited in academic literature at all; only in a small amount of books (most of them self published) in google books. This is not being "cited by peers" in a given field; so fails criteria 1 and 3. Additionally, none of the sources are independent; as all of them are interviews or have connections to the subject or her publisher. As such, the article does not meet the minimum sourcing requirements to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete run of the mill "motivational" speaker with no true independent, in depth coverage (and for those who keep insisting that Forbes makes it hit the mark, it's a contributor piece and thus unreliable.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator wrote that this fails WP:GNG. But I see dozens of prominent reliable sources, like Entrepreneur, ABC, KTLA that discuss her in depth, that are not interviews. I have seen many more encyclopedia entries with much less sources and less reliable sources. If this one cant be accepted for failing GNG, then half of the entries on wikipedia should not be accepted. Rabbiweiner (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Rabbiweiner (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your argument is a textbook definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would suggest pointing out exactly what makes the sources stand out on their own. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, refs are particularly poor. I don't see any real reviews on the book, so doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. What else is left?  Columinst for Entrepreneur magazine. It would be ok if there much better general secondary sourcing to support the article, but there isn't. I    scope_creep Talk  13:19, 27 June 2022 (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.