Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Moore (journalist)


 * 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. This was a close call between NC and calling it an outright Keep consensus. Since they both end up with the same result, I generally don't fret too much about that distinction. This basically comes down to people's opinions about the quality of the sources presented, and I don't see either side presenting argument which clearly outweigh what the other side is saying, so I'm going with NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Moore (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable. Nomination for an emmy is not notability, and the other award is only minor. Almost all references are to her facebook page  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  04:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  04:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm the editor that accepted this at AfC. I think it meets the GNG because of this and this.  --Cerebellum (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: while the Distinguished Women/Men article (first link from Cerebellum) is a good reference, the Vrated (2nd link) is simply an interview with very little in the way of facts. If all that can be said about her is that she's a newscaster and won some small awards, then I do not see how she is notable. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Primefac. The awards are minor. Coverage consists of a news item about her marriage to a fellow newscaster, and a piece in Vegas magazine written by her about herself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I think that the multiple sources just push her over the line. They're substantial, independent, and in what appear to be reliable sources.  It's not much, but probably enough to write a brief, sourced entry with.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
 *  Tentative Keep apart from the "distinguished people" source, it seems like the Las Vegas Review Journal is a priori reliable; which, is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. It is possible that I am missing something here, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Change to definite keep per Thaddeus below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Presumably Vegas Magazine asked her to do a piece on her own likes / dislikes as a person that their readers would be interested in, she didn't break into their offices add the article to their latest edition and then sneak out again. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe your implication is that the Vegas Magazine article isn't a primary source, but interviews count as primary sources, hence my earlier statement. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep - while the interview is certainly a primary source, it is still a type of evidence of notability as non-notable people are not often featured in an interview. The Distinguished People source is good.  Those two combined with the other minor coverage suggests to be the subject is notable, albeit just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per additional RS coverage I found:     --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts on the new sources? czar ⨹   02:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * first, about the old sources: Interviews such as that in Vegas magazine are poor sources for two reasons: first, with respect to verifiability, they usually say only what the person wants to say, They are not even reliable for what the person's likes/dislikes, just what they or their press agents  want us to thing about them '  Whenever they are verifiable even for the basic facts of life depends upon the profession & the topic: people are notably imaginative about their early life. and anyone in a profession that depends on a youthful appearance is unreliable on dates.  Second, they are normally arranged by press agents. Such magazines cover what is supplied to it. It's a   measure of the skill of the press agent more than the notability  of  the subject.
 * As for the new ones, (1) is a trade magazine about news reporters, & the caption above the headline indicates it's the other person who's much better known. (2) is the same story, and indicates the same relative importance, (3) (4) and (5) are a tribute to the persistence of her press agent. I'd need to see something substantial outside Las Vegas. The only ones here are her mere  inclusion in a list of regional awards.  DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with DGG. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While coverage from outside Las Vegas (hardly a small town, "local source" that covers everythign imaginable, BTW) may be desirable, there is currently no clause in WP:BIO or WP:N that says it is required. I stand by my assessment that reliable source coverage confers notability.  Whether the coverage is the result of the "skill of the press agent" (which is an assumption, not a fact) is irrelevent.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2014 (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.