Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikole Hannah-Jones


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 03:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nikole Hannah-Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a journalist which makes and sources no strong claim of notability under WP:JOURNALIST — it just asserts that she exists, and sources it almost entirely to primary sources, such as her "our writers" profiles on the websites of the publications she writes for, or articles in which she's the bylined author rather than, as required to pass our notability rules, the subject. The only source here that's about her in any substantive way is #6, which is just a blurb on the news blog of a marketing agency. Nothing here is the kind of sourcing that gets a journalist into Wikipedia — and all of it is piled up as a single WP:REFBOMB on the fact that she exists, in an article that contains no substantive content about her beyond the fact that she exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Neptune's Trident For a journalist to have an article, it is necessary that reliable sources have written about her and her career. The fact that she has been published by major news outlets is not sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * added a minor prize to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject has more than enough references to be notable. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) User:Neptune's Trident is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
 * User:Neptune's Trident. Ihis is not a vote. It is a process to query notability and reach consensus.  Your "keep" !vote is meaningless. The effective approach is to find sources and bring them here or put them on the page.  the sources need to be reputable publications that report on her and her career.  Not the bylines you used as "references."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The article cites no substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources, but is based almost entirely on her own self-penned public relations profiles on primary source websites. The only legitimate secondary source you added anywhere in the entire article is a blurb of less than 100 words in length, which thus fails to count as substantive coverage. Having profiles on the websites of her own employers is not how any person ever gets into Wikipedia — it takes substantive coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. E.M. Gregory added the article's only solid source — but that's still not enough to get her into Wikipedia if it's the article's only substantive source and no other coverage can be found besides that. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree article was in bad shape. And I agree a journalist should not being notable if they only have bylines but the content is not about the subject. However, this is not the case with this Nikole Hannah-Jones. First, her reporting on resegregation is becoming the story: her reports have been widely hailed here and here and have inspired new thinking about worsening segregation in schools; her work exposing the "deep correlations between housing and poverty" was cited here. Second, she won numerous awards (my count => 8; see article). Third, writing for NY Times magazine and Atlantic etc is pretty much the top of the US journalistic pyramid. Fourth, she is seen by the journalistic community as the go-to person on civil rights. Fifth, she has been a panelist on national radio broadcasts such as PBS and NPR. Sixth, she gave a TED talk. Article improved as per WP:HEYMANN. There are in-depth articles about her here and here and here and here. Overall, a serious investigative journalist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm with Tom here. Although some of the links are staff bios on employers' sites, overall it adds up, the awards, the citations, and the invitations as panelist and speaker. She doesn't just exist, she's been noted (and cited) by quite a lot of people. WP:JOURNALIST # 1 and # 4 a and c. Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (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.