Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. S. Jennsen

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. S. Jennsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are self-published or blog entries and do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NOT HELPFUL I love Wikipedia, and have contributed to it monetarily every year, for years now. I have always wanted to be a contributor in terms of content, as well. And I finally had something to add. Very discouraging. I work in IT and ordinarily think of myself as a competent, intelligent person, but... honestly, this has been a nightmarish experience so far. I'm having a very hard time figuring out what content, precisely, you object to. Did I not provide proof enough this author exists, has published books, as won awards, been interviewed. What is the issue, exactly? Because I have read over the guidelines, and honestly, they aren't real clear and easy to understand. I'm not a scholar, but I don't think I should have to be one. What a horrible process, to be notified your hard work is about to be simply deleted, rather than having a person tell you specifically what needs to be done. These links, guidelines are not easy to understand. Can't I get a little help in fixing the issue rather than just threatening to wipe everything out? I have read the guidelines, several times. I find it confusing. Is she not famous enough for you yet? Can someone give me some understandable feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasHatten (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if this has been confusing. First, your article is not about to be deleted. I proposed that its deletion be discussed. This is the discussion. Other editors will weigh in and a consensus will be arrived at. If the consensus is that the article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, it will be deleted. Otherwise it will remain. The discussion takes at least a week, and often longer, if more time is required to reach consensus. If you think it will help, you can continue to make changes to the article during the process.

The issue is that I don't think Ms Jennsen meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I could be wrong, that's what this discussion is for. The guidelines call for " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." When I look at the sources on the page (and I admit you have a lot of them), I see self-published entries (such as her own web page) and a number of personal blogs about her, but I don't see any strong coverage. I googled her and found the same. Are there any newspapers or magazines that have mentioned her? The awards you mentioned also seem to have been awarded by individual bloggers in their own personal "best" columns. I don't deny that she exists, or has published, or has won awards, or has been interviewed. So have I. That doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article, though. ubiquity (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will endeavor to seek out additional, verifiable and independent sources such as newspapers or magazines. reply added by DouglasHatten

Unless this person has published within professional editorials (in that case, it should be precised), this article should be deleted.~~Rinko87

————————————

I did some checking. The The Valley Planet link I already included is a newspaper article. And not even from her hometown, but an unsolicited piece done by a reporter covering a convention she spoke at last summer. http://valleyplanet.com/con-corner-g-s-jennsens-aurora-rising-issue-214-82715/

This is a piece I found from a local newspaper. http://hhjonline.com/gs-jennsen-wr-native-and-toprated-science-fiction-author-p6932-95.htm

• • • What exactly does "published within professional editorials" mean?.

DouglasHatten

—————————————

• Comment. @DouglasHatten: try looking at WP:42. It's a brief introduction to Wikipedia's concept of notability. The problem is that we need significant coverage in reliable sources. "Significant coverage" means that it's more than just name-dropping someone or a single-sentence mention. Reliable sources are publications that have editorial control, employ professional writers, and have a history of fact-checking and publishing corrections. We can't accept citations to most self-published sources, such as blogs, home pages, social networking sites, etc., because they have no editorial oversight. One exception is that we can accept certain self-published statements made by the subject. As far as the two sources you've listed above, they look reliable. If you can find more like that, it will probably save the article. Others may disagree, but I'm not really convinced that two stories in small-town newspapers is enough coverage to satisfy our inclusion criteria. It may simply be too soon to create an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not as brilliant as I thought. From the very beginning I should have simply Googled the definition of the word "notability" instead of trying to decipher its meaning from the Wikipedia page. I suggest you add this very simple definition on your help page. Notability: a famous or important person. So, I was essentially right in my suspicion. She is simply not famous enough yet. It's that simple. You can add all the overly complicated details of what determines that in the fine details, but it would have really made things so much clearer for me to simply hear that she is not famous or well-known enough yet to be included in an Encyclopedia. I think I read somewhere in the guidelines that one measure for whether something belongs in Wikipedia is if it would normally show up in an encyclopedia. I totally get that now. However:

1. The content of old-fashioned printed Encyclopedia's were limited by finite space. The Internet is not.
2. I could have sworn that over the years I had seen less famous people, small companies, organizations, or individuals in the past, so I did not realize this.

Setting those two things aside. I'll resign from my efforts to publish my article. All I wish to say in closing is that all someone had to tell me is that G. S. Jennsen is not famous enough for Wikipedia. So much easier to understand. Thank you for your patience. I am sorry I wasted your time, and mine. DouglasHatten —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Science fiction author appears not to meet the general notability guidelines (for example no mention at Locus) and the creator has indicated (above) acquiescence in deletion. The article was created on 17 December and tagged for AfD about three hours later. --Bejnar (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is just enough reliable source material to pass GNG guidelines. The article needs inprovement on format, and more definite content would help, but the subject does seem to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Could you be specific as to what multiple independent reliable sources you are referring? Her books appear to be self-published (Hypernova Publishing has published only four books (all hers) and is located in the same town in Colorado; see also here which says they were self-published) and not to have been reviewed in any reliable sources. The key here is reliable sources not blogs (like her "awards", maerwilson, terribleminds or goodreads). The two local papers cited (Houston Home Journal from Georgia and Valley Planet from Tennessee) are unlikely to have the fact-checking and editorial review required for reliable sources. So what are the recognized reliable sources? --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that papers so far removed from where she is based find it worthwhile to create in depth articles on her shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as none what the article currently says even suggests minimal notability and improvement. This could certainly be better no doubt so we'll wait for that. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with more coverage in RS and more accomplished then state pageant winners. Legacypac (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am hoping you will decide to keep it. I am willing to continue to work on it as I can collect more information in my spare time. This author is gaining quite a following. She tours around the country, even out of country (Canada, for example) to appear as a guest at conventions, etc. She has sold hundreds of thousands of copies of books. [DougHatten] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasHatten (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have seen on her site where she has appeared at conventions. I found one in particular that I could cite, the inaugural Magic City Con in Birmingham, AL in 2015 where she appeared as a panelist giving a presentations on Worldbuilding in Science Fiction and Getting Your Work in Print. There website http://www.magiccitycon.com/ now lists the information for 2015, but I found the YouTube video the convention published, showing the author listed in the video at 2:25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvzGMxosCg&feature=youtu.be

comment added by DouglasHatten —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Self-published author with no significant recognition in the genre she publishes in. Superficial pieces in non-notable media near her original hometown do next to nothing to establish notablity. Not a single professional sale or review has been documented. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, have been unable to find anything that assists for notability, just lots of fansites and seller sites, most of the article references are the same. Some of them are newspaper/magazines but these are extremely local (freebies?) ie. "meet the cultural needs of Huntsville and the Tennessee Valley."[1] and daily newspaper for Houston County, Georgia [2]. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For The Moment , though the subject has done a lot of work and one day may become well known, they are not yet known due to lack of mainstream coverage and does not yet meet WP:ANYBIO. baswana89 talk 12:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — baswana89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

 Administrator note - Editor baswana89 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions, which is a peculiar place to start. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:DouglasHatten, if the result is to delete then once sufficient weight of reliable sources are found that you (or anyone else) can request that the article be [to userspace] for update and repair before requesting a move back to mainspace. (I'd like to see non-trivial reliable references that establish her notability as a genre author). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 02:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; You can always make the article again iff enough non-primary material is sourced to do so/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:35, 8 January 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.