Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Dykstra (2nd nomination)
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 February 1. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Dykstra (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)
Non-notable model lackng GHits and Gnews of substance. Lacks reliable coverage. The references provided in the article are not enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia - they are mostly random examples of her work and one line mentions of her. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. I agree Fails WP:BIO. Deangunn (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for this lady pulls up mostly photographs, mentions of the fact that she was going to be Miss World but then got pulled because of some naughty pictures online, and the record of her arrest in Florida in 2006 (when she was 18) on a minor drugs charge. However, I do see that she's been interviewed in GQ magazine, after appearing nude on the cover, and there's another interview by some people called the Daily Grind. These "interviews" are extremely trivial, artificial and superficial and this is not a lady of extremely high accomplishments. Nevertheless, I must rather reluctantly conclude that she's notable, because I can link two sources that have noted her.—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per Wikipedia, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Interviews are primary sources, where are the secondary sources." reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This distinction between primary and secondary sources is a bit complicated and subtle, actually, Reddogsix. It's best to use the form from WP:NOR rather than WP:N, because WP:NOR is policy but WP:N is only a guideline. From WP:NOR it links, in footnote #2, to this page. The page does indeed say that interviews are often primary sources, but it also says a lot of other things and should be read as a whole.
The correct view is that a literal transcript of an interview is a primary source. But interviews may not be literal transcriptions, particularly when published by journalists. Once an independent person edits the interview for relevance and clarity, and adds a quick pen-portrait of the interview subject, you get an interpretive element to the source which places it beyond the normal limits of what a primary source is.
Both of those interviews have been edited for relevance by independent people and are framed in a quick (one-paragraph) pen portrait of the subject written by the journalist. They're trivial and superficial, but I've reluctantly concluded that in my judgment as an experienced editor, even though they're interviews, they're admissible for the purposes of WP:N.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This distinction between primary and secondary sources is a bit complicated and subtle, actually, Reddogsix. It's best to use the form from WP:NOR rather than WP:N, because WP:NOR is policy but WP:N is only a guideline. From WP:NOR it links, in footnote #2, to this page. The page does indeed say that interviews are often primary sources, but it also says a lot of other things and should be read as a whole.
- Comment - Per Wikipedia, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Interviews are primary sources, where are the secondary sources." reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally wrote Jessica Dykstra's wikipedia article 2 years ago, and it was deleted. Since, I've kept my finger on the pulse of her career, and wouldn't have rewritten it if I didn't think that she was past the point where it would be nominated again. She has been in Frederick's of Hollywood since her original article was written. Plus the controversies with Miss World and GQ Magazine add to her notability. She's in 2 motion pictures this year. Here's the trailer for Pain and Gain, which you will see her in throughout. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEQ8jyvmYtw --71.54.247.55 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria? See WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria? I'm not even sure how to respond to that.--71.54.247.55 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria? See WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Might make it: She's not even listed on imdb for Pain and Gain, she's probably just some beach babe type that appears in a few scenes, but I'm generally in alignment with S Marshall's views. She's more notable than she was in 2010. And since its Wikipedia's 12th birthday this week, I refer to what we often say, but which Larry Sanger said first in drawing up the first "deletion policy" page in November 2001: "When in doubt, don't delete."[1] --Milowent • hasspoken 14:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I appreciate the sentiments expressed by S Marshall, I note that one of the sources referred to cites a contentious event (annoying feminists), and per our policy on handling sources for biographies of living persons, we should strive to back up such events with multiple sources. Since so few are forthcoming, and it seems to be the only potentially notable thing she has done, I think we're better off leaving this out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 25 January 2013 (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.