Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Grose


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Grose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, or associated notability guidelines. Article is supported by articles about her books, but lacks non-trivial secondary references about the author - there are a number of primary references and trivial mentions. (wedding announcement, job change, etc.)  Her books may meet WP:NOTBOOK, but I am not sure about the author. red dog six (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject meets several notability guidelines and general notability, particularly WP:N and WP:GNG. The author is a noted figure with significant coverage (at least *12* secondary sources cited) from reliable sources (New York Times, New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, etc). No original research is needed to extract the content, particularly because the two works, published by Hyperion and HarperCollins, have multiple independent reviews in top publications. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject does not appear to be the recipient of a significant award, though this hardly excludes any subject from article creation, particularly for creative professionals. The subject's name (with identifying publication or context) already appears in *40* other Wikipedia articles. A statement that the author is married is followed by a citation of an independent, secondary source (wedding announcement published by the New York Times, perhaps the most credible source on a biographical marriage) is simply a reliable citation. Similarly, each mention of a position held by the subject is cited by at least one independent, reliable, confirming news article or announcement (see WP:NEWSORG under WP:IRSS). Biographical information is often not cited at all in Wikipedia articles, the fact that this citation is available is further evidence of notability - (particularly WP:BASIC and WP:PEOPLE). It should be noted that the above claim by reddogsix that the article contains "a number of primary sources" had been corrected before this person created a deletion discussion. There is only one primary source listed--which is acceptable under WP:PRIMARY WP:PSTS anyway--which is an interview in The Wire wherein the journalist introduces the subject with original reporting. Another above claim by reddogsix that the article contains " trivial mentions. (wedding announcement, job change, etc.) " is not supported by relevant guidelines.Morganmissen (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Once again, supporting references are toned toward the books the authored by the individual. The question of whether or not these support notability of the author is in question.  The items sourced by the creator of the article that directly relate to the article subject are trivial in nature.  Job change announcements or brief mentions are hardly non-trivial.  The fact that the article subject "already appears in *40* other Wikipedia articles" has no bearing in this discussion - although I could find only 5 or so.  This brings us to the wedding announcement in the NY Times - as I pointed out the editor that created the page, the wedding announcement in the NY Times is far from a valid usable reference. Wedding announcements are generally submitted by the participant's family or related party. It is simply not independent.  red dog six  (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- reddogsix, regarding independent sources (please see WP:IS), the wedding section of the New York Times is a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which "has a neutral point of view" and has "editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." Again, the cited source is The New York Times, not the subject's family, though, as with all journalistic writing, may provide details that inform the piece. The qualifier "According to a New York Times announcement," has been added to the biographical citation in case the independence of the New York Times remains in question.
 * The fact that the subject has 40 existing Wikipedia contributes to notability, particularly "The person is widely cited by their peers or successors" in WP:GNP and WP:AUTHOR. I'm not sure why you were only able to find five citations (perhaps try searching Google), though because the subject is a writer, many of the citations are under Last, First. Over a dozen direct links listed on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Jessica_Grose
 * reddogsix's claim that any of the cited sources are "trivial in nature" is simply inaccurate. Each news report describing a job change or biographical information easily passes WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they are the main topic of the sourced material: "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Wikipedia describes a "trivial mention" as a "one sentence mention." Each job change citation in this article, however, includes the subject's name directly in the headline and directly discusses the subject. There are plenty of sources with what I would consider trivial mentions of the subject (for example, the wedding was also covered in Gawker, but along with other weddings: http://gawker.com/5562445/scoring-sundays-nuptials-enjoy-that-wedding-dress-cause-itll-never-fit-you-again) which have been excluded as sources from the beginning. Furthermore, these sources discuss the subject directly, not just the books as you suggest. If making a claim against an article, please be accurate and adhere to Wikipedia's definitions and descriptions -- otherwise pursuing deletion based on personal opinion is not a good use of contributors' and editors' valuable time. Morganmissen (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - May your Holidays be peaceful.  red dog six  (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles in the New York Times, New Yorker and CSM , plus an interview in the Wire  easily pass the notability test. And even though many of the articles are mainly about the books Grose has authored, most also talk about her and her history. Robman94 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Robman94, I think those four sources provide plenty of notability. Krelnik (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is iffy. Would have preferred to see an least one in-depth profile piece on her.  E.g., I recently created Neetzan Zimmerman, it was much easier to find sourcing for him.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Subject Jessica Grose is an author, not a blogger, so the two aren't comparable, even though Jessica Grose's blog was turned into a book by Hyperion. reddogsix, could you look at Milowent's article for Neetzan Zimmerman? This subject appears to only have online articles (none published, no published work by the subject either) to support notability, yet 4 (possibly 5, one is not viewable) of the 6 cited (LinkedIn Profile, Wall Street Journal, The Wire and New York Magazine and likely Boston Herald interviews) are primary sources. The only secondary source is a re-cap of one of the interviews by Business Insider. If primary sources and website interviews were permissible support for notability, Jessica Grose's article would easily have at least dozen more citations. Morganmissen (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In 2013, saying someone is an "author" not a "blogger" is wholly irrelevant, the question is who writes about the person. Both Zimmerman and Grose come to any prominence after Gawker work.  Its a shame you'd call Zimmerman to task when he is easily subject to more coverage than Grose.  An interview as a portion of a profile piece does not make the profile piece a wholly "primary source".  However, I've looked some more at the sources currently cite in this article, like, and maybe her notability is less "iffy" than I thought.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Milowent, the article you created for Neetzan Zimmerman relies almost solely on primary sources, which you should know is not acceptable for notability. If your statement is true that subject Neetzan Zimmerman has received more coverage than Jessica Grose, it should be easy for you to construct an article out of independent, reliable secondary sources as I have. Please do not remove maintenance tags again without improving the article, it should be reviewed by editors as this article subject has. If you recognize the secondary-sourced, in-depth coverage of subject Jessica Grose to meet notability guidelines, particularly relative to your comparison of Neetzan Zimmerman's primary sources, please amend your comments. Injecting unsupported personal opinions while violating Wikipedia guidelines does not make for constructive discussion. Morganmissen (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am tired of this bullshit. An article which includes an interview component is not a 100% primary source.  Delete Jessica Grose for all I care, the article sounds like a resume which is why I was skeptical about it.  And I dare say you care a lot more than I do; you seem well versed in wikipedia lingo despite your very few edits including the creation of this article at AFD.  I won't comment further here.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Milowent, I'm simply responding with an accurate description of your original comparison, there's no need to get angry or violate Wikipedia guidelines out of spite. Wikipedia guidelines are easy to understand, easy to find, and easy to follow! :) Again to clarify, Neetzan Zimmerman's article cites six sources, but in only one of those (a Business Insider post recapping one of the other sources) the subject did not directly contribute to the information cited. Jessica Grose's article cites sixteen secondary sources, only one of which includes information from the subject. reddogsix is pursuing deletion of Jessica Grose's article, so a fair comparison is in order. If you have any questions about primary sources, I'm sure reddogsix will be more than happy to explain. As I mentioned, reddogsix removed multiple interviews from the same publications from Jessica Grose's article claiming they were unacceptable, so given that and other issues with Neetzan Zimmerman's article, reddogsix will surely propose it for deletion as well. You two should talk though. Best holiday wishes to you. Morganmissen (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - If you have issues with another article post it there - this is not the appropriate place for such discussion.  Please don't include me in your passive aggressive behavior - it is not only inappropriate in the Wikipedia community it borders on WP: UNCIVIL behavior. I suggest you read WP:DEADHORSE.  red dog six  (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Again, just responding to Milowent's comparison to Neetzan Zimmerman's Wikipedia article. I have not brought any other articles into this discussion :) reddogsix, I see that you removed all maintenance tags for Neetzan Zimmerman's article, despite its citing almost entirely what you have called primary sources, including the subject's own LinkedIn profile. I hope that action confirms to anyone reading that undue, inconsistent scrutiny was applied to this subject Jessica Grose by reddogsix, for reasons I'll leave to the reader to interpret.
 * I've only requested a fair review for this article, and have been able to defend each and every point using Wikipedia guidelines. Given the clear consensus that Jessica Grose's article satisfies reddogsix's notability and citation concerns, I look forward to resolution. Morganmissen (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2013 (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.