Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jillian York


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jillian York

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability,Conflict of Interest Primecoordinator (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) This page is little more than a vanity page for the subject and should not have been created in the first place. Original author of the page appears to be in a personal relationship with the subject and thus creation of the page was done so in a direct Conflict of Interest. The subject lacks notability in that while having written for several publications, this is not in and of itself notable. Working for groups such as the EFF is also not notable per se as it is just one doing their job. The wording "She has been featured in" is also misleading as it infers that the subject has been verified to be notable via third party sources when in fact she has just contributed articles to these publications. This page should be deleted on these grounds as there are many who fall within these bounds, especially in San Francisco (activism, writing, academics) and they are not all notable. Primecoordinator (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The Boston Globe profiled her on April 28, 2011, and several other reluable publications have discussed her, rather than just quoting her "doing her job". Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Would be curious to see additional publications you mention. Also, would like to hear other user opinions as this profile piece you cite would indicate that any type of overview (such as of a restaurant, product, or person) in a notable third party source would make the subject notable for a Wikipedia article i.e. a review of Mom & Pop's Hot Dogs appears in the Boston Globe, but only there, would that make it notable from a Wikipedia vantage?  There is still also the issue with this article in that it was created with a conflict of interest, although apparently Notability trumps that for your vantage? Primecoordinator (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response The Boston Globe story here is 22 paragraphs long, and is entirely devoted to this person. That's in depth coverage.  I think that it would be a rare hot dog stand that would merit that degree of coverage from a major newspaper.  Conflict of interest can be a problem, but is not a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Instead it is a reason to edit the article to reflect the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for "additional publications", she was the subject of a lengthy interview on National Public Radio, a transcript of which is available here. New Scientist discussed her research here. ABC News described her as a specialist in "free expression, politics, and the Internet, particularly in the Arab world" in their coverage of Tunisia here.  The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz quoted her as an expert on blogging by Iranian opposition forces here, as did the Globe and Mail here.  PC Magazine quoted her on the internet shutdown in Egypt here, as did Reuters in a report here.  The New York Times reported on her knowledge on the internet in Bahrain here. Al Jazeera reported that she had detected the blocking of Facebook in Egypt before Facebook itself had here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. These should have been included originally lest the article drift in to Uncited territory Primecoordinator (talk) 04:10, 01 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Person has been subject of several news stories. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Always interesting to see new users pop up out of nowhere for living person deletion requests Primecoordinator (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and hopefully clean up a bit. This article and this article contain fairly clear indications of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs a good deal of work and heavier reference citation. The lack of citation was the main reason I put it up for deletion as it smacked of a vanity page. Primecoordinator (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2011 (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.