Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Livingston (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   No Consensus to Delete defaulting to Keep. There is a real disagreement over the notability of this article. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Livingston
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Personally I think this should be deleted as a db-repost but since one person has unilaterally overturned such a decision, I guess we'll hash this out once more. The subject continues to fail WP:BIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent publications. As before. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx)  18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and WP:SALT per the rationale provided in the nom.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's been mentioned in Newsweek, MSNBC, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. This is surely "non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent publications". --Adxp (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I overturned the decision because it was speedied without proper criteria - I think it's much better for us to talk about it here. db-repost requires it to be "substantially identical" which I don't think it is. Per the notability, the articles given by the above commenter and the Google test (187,000 hits) would seem to indicate some measure of notability. Keep. Ludraman (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: See previous discussion at Articles for deletion/Jessica Livingston. — Satori Son 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Have to agree with Adxp. Found significant coverage from quite a few reliable – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources as shown here, .  ShoesssS Talk 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - just to point out that the link — Satori Son provided is dated from 2005, and since that time, there has been significant coverage of Ms. Livingston. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply otherwise, only provide a link to the previous AfD since it didn't show up the header for some reason. — Satori Son 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were trying anything other than giving additional information. I, on the other hand :-), wanted to point out that there was coverage since that time period that probably would justify inclusion at this day in time. ShoesssS Talk 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Adxp has provided the coverage from reliable and independent publications that the nom falsely claimed did not exist. Did the nom attempt to do a simple google search before bringing this to AFD? SashaNein (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete At least two of the articles mentioned above (Newsweek and MSNBC) are copies of the same article and all but one article is what I would call mentioned in passing - the subject was mentioned once and not again and the subject was not the actual subject of any of these articles. So I'm not convinced that notability has been established and must support deletion at this point, though I'm open to changing my mind if more info comes to light. Sarah 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete she doesn't have a sufficient level of independent notability away from Y Combinator that I can find. Even the references provided above are more to do with Y Combinator than they are to do with her. The whole series of articles needs cleanup BTW for anyone interested as even the Y Combinator page lacks reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it again, the references mentioned above have little to do with the actual subject, and I remain unconvinced that this meets the WP:BIO guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Google considered her notable enough to be featured in their Authors@Google lecture series. She's a published author and subject of numerous interviews related to her book.  She's prominent in the high tech startup community.  Herdrick (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment At time of writing, the vote is 5-4 in favour of keeping the article. When does the AfD nomination expire? --89.234.125.141 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. When an administrator is available, he or she will weigh the arguments presented and make a decision. JBsupreme (talk)
 * Keep. She's the author of a bestselling book -- in fact, it was the #1 book for her publisher that year. And a Google News Archives search finds dozens of articles for her. AaronSw (talk) 20:29, 24 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.