Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adena Jacobs

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) Lourdes 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Adena Jacobs

Adena Jacobs (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)

NN individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I've added a couple of references, by no means exhaustive. Don't know how nominator could have googled her and thought the results trivial. For example, she's been profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Saturday Paper, which alone is more than enough for WP:GNG. I'd argue she passes WP:CREATIVE too based on her works although they aren't really referenced in the article (but are reviewed all over the place in independent, credible Australian sources). Boneymau (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Not sure what WP:BEFORE was done. (Is the second speedy on the article appropriate while this AfD is running? ) Aoziwe (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The Sydney Morning Herald article is both in-depth and non-trivial. I recommend that the nominator try to do a better job with WP:BEFORE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 14 August 2017 (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.