Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jes Baker

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 speedy keep#1, noting that the nominator has now !voted keep effectively withdrawing their nomination and that there are now no remaining arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jes Baker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

one book, not a best seller (196 copies in libraries)_ A promotional article about a promotional speaker. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is convincing enough. Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This person hasn't achieved the notability required by WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm changing my vote in recognition of the work done by BrillLyle which have included improvements to the referencing that now allow the case to be made that she might pass WP:GNG. I think DGG's concerns about it sounding promotional were valid and haven't yet been fully addressed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person is part of a feminist movement and probably makes people uncomfortable. But she is notable within her field and has gotten mainstream press. She has over 5 legit citations so there's zero reason for her entry to be deleted. Zero. I will try to wiki-fy the article, but really strong NO on deleting article -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to judge notability according to our sympathy with someone's views, or the merit of their cause. To be realistic, I suppose we all do that subconsciously to some extent, but it can lead to advocacy according to the prevailing sympathies here. )I admit to a certain personal bias for incomplwtely documented third world anti-colonialist revolutionaries) But since it looks like there just might be enough to be kept, I'll do some further editing. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG David although I am a fellow fatty I did not do a scrub and add to this entry out of sympathies. I saw multiple mentions of this subject's entry on pages for current and future A+F editathons because this woman is notable in her area of expertise. It was clear the page was listed for improvement work, needed help. I genuinely wanted to see if I could find enough supporting citations to support subject's notability. During the scrub -- and more importantly during what turned out to be not even a deep search for legit sources -- it became clear that the subject has been involved in work that is notable. I was looking for legit sources to present an alternative perspective to support this claim of promotion but found only one very specious blog post that I removed for ITS lack of notability / legitimacy. Would you like me to do a deeper search for information to support this article? I think it's a bit of overkill and over scrutiny here so I am confused. I could throw a stick and find loads of existing articles on male subjects that are in much worse notability and promotional shape. Plus you will probably have spilkes once A+F begins and all these women artists are added and there isn't proper time to generate citations to support notability -- even if subject is notable -- but isn't on Wikipedia yet because of the gender gap issue. Anyway we can also have a lively in person debate and/or discussion on this at MoMA. Would also make a great lightning talk...! Xo -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BrillLyle, thanks for clarifying. I admit that I am personally much more likely to work on something I find interesting, and I am aware that this sometimes means something to which I am sympathetic--and I assume that I'm not unique. If it has anything to do with male/female, or other group membership, it tends to incline me to work harder on those which are under-represented in the sources. But I can;t deny that there does exist some downright prejudice here on WP, as was revealed by some of the responses to the Signpost editorial. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey @DGG: I did a pretty good scrub of the article and found a lot more citations. Not sure where you looked SwisterTwister but the info is out there. I think the AfD tag can be removed now. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It remains entirely promotional about her views. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's not promotional, the work she is doing. Her book is almost 9/10ths writing by others. I think her work is clearly notable, and she has legit citations and coverage. Anyone else want to chime in. BrillLyle (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now cleaned DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable woman in the feminist movement, and the references make that point. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources indicate notability.--Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't withdraw the nomination, for there has been a delete vote from someone else, but I think the evidence for notability is now satisfactory and the promotionalism removed. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: So what do you think now that the article has been revamped? gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to everyone who worked to improve this one. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work has been done to improve this article. Well done! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.