Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Denay


 * 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 (NOT no consensus) and trout all who voted delete due to blatant WP:OSTRICH initial votes for delete was due to complete lack of research, such behavior is harmful to the building an encyclopedia. Sources provided by Coolabahapple shows this unquestionably passes GNG. (nac) Valoem   talk   contrib  21:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Denay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. There are plenty of mentions in reliable sources but nothing that I have been able to find that comes close to providing the substantial coverage that we require. SmartSE (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete since I still confirm my PROD and planned to nominate for AfD myself, there are simply no signs, from the article and my searches, that this can be better notable and improved. SwisterTwister   talk  18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Facebook likes and being a tutor of the child of celebrities does not make the person notable, neither do having celebrity clients. Donnie Park (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing much here; just a lot of what I've previously called "gilt by association".  JohnInDC (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of any notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Hardly anything really notable. Bruriyah (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all of the above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, is it just me (probably, from the number of above deleters), or is this a borderline case? have found some book reviews for The Hot Mom's Handbook, Kirkus Reviews, - "Blogger and founder of The Hot Mom’s Club Denay (The Hot Mom to Be Handbook, 2010, etc.) offers fun and useful advice for mothers of all ages. .. Spirited and helpful guide that will bring out the beauty and confidence in every mother."; The Hot Mom to Be Handbook: Look and Feel Great from Bump to Baby, Publishers Weekly,  - "Denay (The Hot Mom's Handbook ), blogger and founder of the online community Hot Moms Club, focuses on the mom-to-be in this reissue with a snappy cover and design. .. Though readers seeking more solemn fare will no doubt quickly lose patience with Denay's chatty prose, many moms-to-be will warm up to the Hot Moms Club discounts and shopping tips, and others may simply enjoy indulging themselves with a breezy read before baby arrives.", Library Journal,  - "There is a plethora of girlfriend books aimed at first-time moms, most featuring embarrassing attempts at humor via mock horror at bodily changes. Denay, founder of Hot Moms Club (www.hotmomsclub.com), joins the ranks with this handbook for the young and newly pregnant set. .. Some vignettes are fairly cute; most are predictable.".  There are also articles (some deemed mentions?) in NJ.com -  - ‘Hot Moms’ concept relies on confidence and attitude, not just a pretty package, Toronto Star -  - Move over yummy mummy: The 'momshell' is the latest hot mama, Woman's Day -  - Break Free from Your Relationship Ruts - Rut #1: Same-Old Date Night, Tulsa World -  - Hot moms. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not just you, . I found her also interviewed on FOX and MSNBC, book discussed in USA Today , book and author discussed in Philadelphia Inquirer . I'm going with Keep based on what I and  found. I'll try to add and improve the article today if I have the time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the non-interview sources, and I found other sources not in databases. Please take a look. Note: I didn't have time to add the Kirkus or PW. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete", and is now reopened and relisted per Deletion review/Log/2016 April 19.  Sandstein  16:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Request Can you please fix the links you've added to http://search.ebscohost.com/ (both here and in the article) so that we can all access them? I presume that they are online somewhere else? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , so far, I can't find any non-database alternatives. I'm really sorry. I'm not sure if I can provide copies of the articles because of copyright issues. Does anyone know more about that? Can I provide editors copies for reference review? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, if done only for the purpose of referencing it for Wikipedia and done in a restricted way (i.e. by email, not posting the article freely online; send only one article, not a whole copy of a newspaper; etc.). See WP:RX for more guidelines. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a grey area to be honest, but yes emailing them is fine. See WP:REX. It's not a good idea to link to databases that few people can access though - an unlinked citation is better IMO. Am I right though that the USA today source is this? If so, that is an extremely brief mention. Which are the best for providing coverage of Denay? (And I mean her specifically, rather than a book she wrote). SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate dealing with copyright. Thank you for your information, though, . As for the USA today article,, it's different. It's not super long, but I added it to show the celebrity following she had picked up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the above sources. Passes WP:GNG, and we should be assuming good faith on offline sources or online sources that aren't immediately available to all editors. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rob I don't think anyone is disputing that sources exist, but it's unclear whether they are sufficient to pass GNG. I'm not sure how you are able to tell she is notable without reviewing the sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The plethora of delete voters didn't even see that sources exist. I don't think anyone was contesting anything; they merely didn't know they existed. A good-faith reading of what megalibrarygirl wrote indicates the author was interviewed by FOX and MSNBC. That along with the plethora of book reviews given above meets WP:NAUTHOR #4c. ~ RobTalk 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sorry I missed the first round of the AfD discussion. As I indicated when I WP:DEPRODded, there is ample indication of notability in a HighBeam search. If anyone needs me to, I can pick out specific sources that clearly make the case. ~Kvng (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I was able to make two of the subscription sources open access, but given the reviews of her book in Kirkius and Publisher's Weekly, seems clear that she meets GNG. Add to that the interviews, the Toronto Star and Women's Day pieces, clearly has had coverage over time in RS. As for substantial, it is not the length of coverage that represents adequate sourcing but the depth of coverage. She is clearly being linked by numerous publishers to a phenomenon that has gathered steam and resonated with mothers. We don't create notability, sources do. SusunW (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the analyses of Coolabahapple and Megalibrarygirl. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2016 (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.