Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Evans (politician)


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Jordan Evans (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a local politician in a small town, with no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:NPOL. The only political offices she has held are secretary of her political party's local chapter in her own town and trustee on the local library board, but these are not NPOL-passing offices -- and the only other attempt at a notability claim here is of the "first member of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" variety, which AFD has consistently held is not a free pass to being instantly more notable than other library trustees or committee secretaries. And as the sources go, two of the four are glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that are not fundamentally about her, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself rather than being written about in the third person -- so all of them would be fine for supplementary verification of facts if there were other, better sources alongside them, but none of them are notability clinchers in and of themselves if there aren't other, better sources alongside them. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — This is a classic pitfall of additional notability criteria such as WP:NPOL. Scroll up slightly to the heading above that, at Notability (people), and it says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and then, just in case anyone missed it, it repeats: "a person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." NPOL, or WP:ARTIST or WP:ATHLETE whatever are additional paths to notability, not narrow hurdles a bio must overcome. This subject meets WP:GNG because she has been the main topic of significant coverage in multiple, good-quality sources over a span of time, and not only for a single thing. This includes 2017, and in 2018 , and in 2019 . This is in addition to the citation from 2016 and three more from 2017 currently cited in the article. It would be nice if all of these had been mentioned in the stub, but it's not necessary, since WP:BEFORE requires not just checking the sources in the article, but taking a few minutes to do a basic search yourself before nominating at AfD. It took me about three minutes to locate these. I could have done it in even less time if I'd started at https://jwevans.co/media/ (self-serving media pages aren't reliable sources, but pointing out the existence of coverage makes our job easier). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Three of those are not sources about her, but sources which merely quote her giving soundbite in an article that is about something or somebody else. A fourth (ThinkProgress) is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all. A fifth (Boston Spirit) is a short blurb in a listicle in a local interest magazine. And while the other two would be fine for some additional verification of facts if the other sources in play were better and more substantive than they are, those two don't add up to enough — NewNowNext and Refinery29 are not sources that get a person over the GNG bar all by themselves if they're the best you can do. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Agree completely re: ThinkProgress, a biased propaganda rag of John Podesta's left-leaning Center for American Progress. Refinery29 sounds like a blog; most of the others don't seem to meet WP:RS. Washington Post and NBC News articles look like tangential or passing mentions to me. Well cited rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Has been mentioned a lot of places, but none of it comes close to significant coverage. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG has been met. Generally, this is true of people who have 1,300 word articles written about them in The Washington Post. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep of encyclopedic interest Lyndaship (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and rationale provided by . Doug Mehus (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep That is a chunky article and the rest of the coverage is beyond what is required. I think due to the nature of her existence, there will be more news articles, soliciting additional coverage as time passes. I think it is a solid keep. Far more than is needed to pass WP:SIGCOV. I can't agree with the argument that it is tenuous and is off the moment.   scope_creep Talk  14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG with WaPo article, Cosmo, Boston Spirit profile, and the news sources considering Evans a credible source to quote in articles about other topics. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Giving soundbite to the media is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself; Boston Spirit is a local interest magazine giving her a short blurb in a listicle, not a substantive or notability-making source; Cosmo is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, not an article being written about her by somebody independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - there has been lots of significant coverage - a local official can be notable, but is not automatically presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of significant coverage where? Virtually every source that's been shown at all is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her to any non-trivial degree, a local-interest listicle, or a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person — only one source has been shown that even gets her off the starting blocks, and one valid source is not enough to get her to the finish line all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Special pleading has reached the level of adsurdity here. Being a member of a party committee at the town level is not a sign of notability, ever, under any circumstances. Being an elected member of a library board is never a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing here comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2019 (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.