Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope Jean Hayes


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  09:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Penelope Jean Hayes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not every TV presenter-publicist-New Age author is notable. Failed WP:NCREATIVE on basis either of author or of television career. Even basic biographical details like birthplace are self-sourced which isn't a disqualifier alone, but not a good sign for notability in general. I've done a lot of trimming of PR-style writing from this article, so evaluators might want to see for more sources originally added by the article creator. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bri I have done some additional trimming to remove PR-style writing from this article, and have added new reference sources of this person's work as an author and writer. Wikiver23 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Wikiver23 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikiver's idea of "fixing" this was adding that Ranker once included her in a "the 25 most famous people named Penelope" listicle — which is (a) not relevant to her notability at all, (b) not even a mildly interesting fact, and (c) not a reliable or notability-making source in the first place. So what I've learned here isn't that Penelope Jean Hayes is notable, it's that Wikiver doesn't understand what we're looking for. Even with that fluff removed, this is still written much more like somebody tried to convert her résumé into prose than like a proper encyclopedia article — and it's not referenced to substantive reliable source coverage about her, but to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people and primary source contributor profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers. These are not notability-making sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please help improve article. Bearcat is correct; I don't fully understand what you are looking for. Being a hobbyist editor I'm learning from this discussion. I do not work for any person or company in which I have updated information on articles; completely unpaid. I am a literary fan and have contributed to several articles of publishing houses and writers when I've learned about them in news articles and yet the Wikipedia pages did not reflect all that is publicly known. I'm interested to improve articles, become a knowledgable editor and I enjoy being part of this community. Thank you Bearcat for helping my understanding of notability-making sources. Don't know if you also noticed these newer additions to sources, hoping these qualify as reliable or notability-making source: and and . I'd like to propose an alternative to deletion, this person is an author, has a column in a popular spiritual magazine, and she been on national TV shows: Noteworthy, yes, but may I ask for further guidance here regarding editing to the correct standards? Wikiver23 (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What we require is reliable source coverage which is about Penelope Hayes. Being an author, having a column in a magazine and being on national TV shows are not, in and of themselves, notability freebies that guarantee her an article as long as you reference the facts to just any random web page you can find: those things only get a person into Wikipedia if they have resulted in her becoming the subject of reliable source coverage about her in books and magazines and newspapers. You don't make a person notable by referencing her own work about other subjects to itself as verification that it exists, you make a person notable by referencing her work to journalism about her which was written and created by other people as verification that reliable sources have paid independent attention to her work. For example, you don't make a writer notable by referencing the existence of her book to an online bookstore or a press release from its own publisher or a directory entry on GoodReads or WorldCat: you make a writer notable by referencing the existence of her book to evidence that other unaffiliated sources have paid independent attention to the book, such as by actually reviewing it in their books sections, or by publishing a journalist-written article about her in the news or arts sections, or by reporting as news that it won or got nominated for a major literary award. You don't make a person notable as a contributor to the Huffington Post by referencing it to her "our contributors" profile on the Huffington Post — you make a person notable as a contributor to the Huffington Post by referencing it to evidence that other unaffiliated media outlets have paid independent attention to her work for the Huffington Post, by producing journalism or critical analysis about it. And by the same token, you don't make a person notable as a magazine columnist by referencing the fact to her own columns — you make a person notable as a magazine columnist by referencing it to reliable source journalism or critical analysis about her work as a magazine columnist. You do not make a person notable as a television personality by referencing her television appearances to video clips or transcripts of the appearances — you make a person notable as a television personality by referencing it to evidence that other unaffilited media outlets have done journalism or critical analysis about her work as a television personality. You do not make a person notable as a publicist by referencing it to a photograph of her holding a chart, or a soundbite from her in an article whose primary subject is one of her past or present clients — you make a person notable as a publicist by referencing her work as a publicist to journalism which has her as its subject. And on and so forth: the notability test is not that her work metaverifies its own existence, it is that other people who don't have a vested interest in promoting her have independently paid third party attention to her work in reliable sources. Journalism being done by other people about her (which is not the same thing as journalism about other people which happens to mention her name); book reviews being published by other people about her books; somebody writing and publishing a full-on book length biography of her; and on and so forth. That's why none of the sources you've been using are helping: they're all just primary source verification that she exists, not reliable source coverage about her that would bridge the gap between "existence" and "notability". Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON. I don't find any coverage about her. Her only book has a publication date of 2020, and the only coverage about it is a promotional article from the publisher. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:53, 15 June 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.