Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Tenner


 * 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, default to keep. Opinion is clearly divided as to whether the subject has adequate notability, with valid arguments on both sides. Cleanup is recommended, but in the absence of overwhelming WP:BLP concerns I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Tenner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. None of the online refs I can see seem to be about the subject. It is possible some offline sources may be (the titles of the articles on "Las Vegas Weekly" and "All In" sound promising), but I have trouble verifying them (if we could see the scans, we could make a decision based on those). I did not prod it because I expect that the creator (User:I'm Tony Ahn, a self-disclosed PR professional) would likely challenge this and we would end up here. On the bright side, I hope he can also provide us with the scans of those sources for verification. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should assume good faith and nobody should require a writer to provide scans of print publications under the threat of excluding those sources otherwise, when they are available through a number of other channels (like LexisNexis). That sets a dangerous precedent. That said, I wouldn't have challenged a prod. This article is not being serviced by our agency at this time. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled. Whether an article is serviced by your agency or not, this should not matter. Unless you are saying that you will write and defend articles for $$$ only, regardless of them being notable or not. In this case, if she is notable, you should say so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the second or third time that you've made a statement to me contain a subtext that editors are required to do further work if they've done past work. "You forgot to add categories," was the last one. I don't have to add categories. I don't have to defend anything I've written. I don't have say someone is notable. I don't have to do anything. What I will say at this time is that when my agency writes an article, it offers a refund if the article is deleted in a certain amount of time after it is written. We also offer monitoring and updating of articles. If we've just written an article that is deemed worthy to be in mainspace by an independent reviewer, and moved there by that editor, then it is AfD'd, yes I take an active role in the discussion. However, as a PR practitioner who was paid to write the article, I recognize my opinion may be given less weight than others, which is reasonable, so I don't think stating why I think a subject who we're not servicing is notable at AfD is a good use of my writing time or your reading time. And let me categorically state, that from this account, I ONLY write and defend articles for money. I have edited as User:Archer904 (started in 2005, retired now) and to this day still edit on my personal account User:Noraft. That account has created some of Wikipedia's best content. This account is my public relations agency account to separate my paid editing. So while this account "will write and defend articles for $$$ only," it is NOT regardless of the subject being notable or not. I turn away many more potential clients than I accept. First I send them here: Paid Wikipedia Article Requirements. Half don't come back after reading that. A third come back with questionable or unreliable sources (blogs without independent editorial review, and yes, we turn them away) and another eighth come back saying "I've got no press, how much do you charge to get me press?" (then they run when they see the prices are thousands of dollars). Only about one in six who approach us actually become clients, because we believe they are notable. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tony, believe it or not, I don't have much against paid editors, through I do have trouble understanding why you wouldn't want to defend articles you have written for $$$ - even if the customers are no longer paying, they are, a) part of your portfolio, and b), presumably beneficial to Wikipedia (or you should not have created them in the first place). Regarding print sources requirement, it is not necessary to produce them - but that makes them hard to verify, and at AfD, AGF for sources is not often extended. Particularly when visible online sources are poor, it stands to reason the non-visible ones will be poor too. To prove otherwise, we have to see them. In other words, when visible sources are poor, saying "but my non-visible sources are good, trust me" is not very effective. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you had anything against paid editors. I said I don't think my opinion carries as much weight, nor should it. That should be other members of the community. I don't defend articles I'm not paid to defend because time on the clock that is not generating revenue is a cost center. If I can generate two dollars a minute, spending an hour in AfD is an opportunity cost of $120 and an actual cost of my hourly wage. I get paid to add notable content like John Lemp to the encyclopedia where individuals such as yourselves can benefit from the third party financial investment in expanding Wikipedia's coverage. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. A perfunctory search yielded no reliable nor independent coverage. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: As a puff piece that looks like a resume and possibly containing false claims. That said, my mind could be changed; there are three non-linked print sources that someone needs to check on, some of the Las Vegas sources are independent, and they may be (barely) adequate to confer notability.  But the article itself needs serious fact-checking for exaggerating claims... This one is a howler:  "In her youth, Tenner was a member of the New York City Ballet from 1957 to 1963, dancing annually on its visit to the West Coast, under the direction of George Ballanchine. She attended Van Nuys High School, graduating in 1965..."  Um OK ... the New York City Ballet is a very big deal, as was George Balanchine.  Doing the math and assuming a high school grad is usually 17 or 18, the argument would be that she was a professional ballerina from age 8 or 9 until age 15 or 16. If it was only "dancing annually on its visit to the West Coast", she must have been a munchkin in a children's Corps de ballet at best. Really?  That's in a resume?  Sheesh!   Montanabw (talk)  05:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No good faith on the articles, eh? You have to verify? I've never seen anyone else asked in AfD to produce all the print publications. But okay. They are below. Also, Lisa is reading your comments and finds your mockery hurtful. She said "I danced from age 9 to 18 and was paid. I performed in his West Coast dance troupe at the Greek Theatre."
 * Gaming Today
 * Las Vegas Weekly
 * EAT'M UP?
 * I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is, what does this have to do with her notability? Heck, I was in an ice-skating show when I was 4 years old that also featured an olympic skater. I don't put it in my resume because, among other things, not only do I no longer ice skate, it has nothing to do with my current work.  This is not a resume nor is Wikipedia an advertising outlet.  Sorry if her feelings are hurt, but are you being paid to create this article, Tony??   Montanabw (talk)  03:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Information is included in encyclopedia articles to provide a well rounded view of the subject. Most encyclopedic biographies include information about the subject's early years. I included the ballet experience because a nine year activity with professional affiliation at a young age seemed like it would speak to her focus and drive, which would help the reader have a better picture of who she is. That information has been edited out of the current version however, so the point is mute unless someone puts it back. I cannot do so, as per WP:COI.
 * I do appreciate you providing the sources. First, a statement from the subject's interview should be attributed to the subject clearly. "In an interview in Foo Magazine, she stated that...". Regarding sources: does not have much in-depth coverage of her, but it does state she won some awards which the publication claims are big deal in the industry, through it would be good to see a more independent source confirm this award is indeed significant (this could help with WP:ANYBIO#1). Gaming Today is a trade magazine ("Weekly newspaper founded in 1976 covers all aspects of the industry.").  from Las Vegas Weekly does seem like a more in-depth coverage. The other three sources suggest that the EAT'M UP event may be notable, through notability is not inherited. Overall, the LVW reference is pretty helpful, and does push this closer to being notable. Not close enough for me to withdraw it right now, but close enough I'll ping User:FoCuSandLeArN and User:Montanabw to see what they think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I second ' comments above, as well as 's., you need to calm down with your outrage. Nobody's asking you to produce "all the print publications". Checking sources is the whole point of an AfD discussion; we must therefore review what's available, the whole point of this is guaranteeing the subject sees appropriate consideration. Your tone indicates you might have other intentions at play. Nobody made hurtful comments; your COI is showing. Finally, the subject's opinion has no place in this discussion. They might be sure they're fantastic dancers who've changed the way the world sees the art form, but without extensive coverage about it they just don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Will make the change. If you want to confirm the award is significant, why not do some research instead of asking to be waited on? FoCuS, he asked me to produce them all for Martin Shirran. ALL. Here just half. My point is, asking an article creator to prove something you can verify yourself (Hoof it to the library and get on LexisNexis) lest the article be deleted is a Bad Thing, in my opinion. It shouldn't be on that person. Notice nobody is saying "Does anyone have access to this periodical?" or "I'm hoping someone can provide scans." I'm being asked. Just me. That's not right. Also, your interpretation of my emotional states is off (and attributing outrage to someone is a marginalizing tactic, so thanks for that), but I'll help you. I don't feel outrage. I feel contempt, which doesn't stem from anger, it stems from disappointment in what is happening to Wikipeida. Contempt (as I feel it) is defined as "the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn." And I feel this process is worth less and less as it changes. It wasn't like this before. I preferred the way it was to the way it is becoming. And that's alright. I'm entitled to my preferences and to my contempt. Hurtful is defined as "causing distress to someone's feelings," and the subject was hurt. Do you not see how saying the line was "a howler" (which the means "something to laugh hard at" i.e. worthy of ridicule) and alleging false claims would hurt someone's feelings? And I didn't share her opinion. I told you her emotional reaction in a bid to get you to realize that the things you say affect other people that aren't parties to this process. In a nutshell, be less insensitive. I'll go dig up some of what I've been asked to provide. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do these help notability at all? I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per OP142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources: I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided by Tony Ahn in this AFD discussion (especially the Gaming Today and Las Vegas Weekly scans and the article in Global Gaming Business Magazine) convince me that the subject meets notability guidelines. clpo13(talk) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenner Looking to Put Grand Bahama on the Map
 * Women's Poker Spotlight: Lisa Tenner
 * Pokernews is not a reliable source. Bahamas Weekly piece is clearly a press release. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, on reading the article i can't see how the subject meets WP:ANYBIO, although WP:BASIC close to being met. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Women's Poker Spotlight: Lisa Tenner is exactly the kind of in-depth coverage of the subject that WP:GNG requires. It is further strengthened by GGB Magazine's piece on the 25 visionaries to watch, and also Event Planner Takes Industry's Oscar. Las Vegas Weekly and Las Vegas Sun both ran stories as well. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC appear to me to be satisfied. Wilipino (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still none of this is at all actually convincing, I see nothing else suggesting better. SwisterTwister   talk  19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as the Poker News, the Gaming Today, and Global Gaming Business Magazine articles provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and so she meets GNG. The article needs cleanup, however. Ca2james (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article reads like a resume and strikes me as promotional. I don't find most of the sources given to be independent and neutral, and what might be are not significant coverage.  MB  01:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rewrite. The article needs fine tuning. Split25 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- promo content and the sourcing does not suggest "significant coverage" to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.