Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Gilmore

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, a sound career of journalism and a role as columnist for local media in Oklahoma followed by founding a PR agency may be a recipe for a good life but it is not the stuff of notability. It's just someone local doing their job locally. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, United States of America, Illinois, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Beyond obit coverage in the Oklahoman, not much of anything found. Simply a person doing their job, wiki is also not a memorial. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She was also a founding member of Leadership Oklahoma City and Oklahoma Children's Medical Research Foundation. For her life's work, Gilmore was elected to the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame, among other things. Comments such as those above, dismissing achievements of women, is why various Wikipedia projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, WP:WIG, WP:WOMEN were founded. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It has absolutely nothing whatsoever in any imaginable way whatever or any conceivable construction possible got anything at all to do with her gender. Good grief, get a grip... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article cites three substantial obituaries in three independent reliable sources, that's enough to meet WP:NBASIC. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Joe Roe.--Ipigott (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The three substantial obituaries, plus other coverage about the multiple local halls of fame she's a member of, plus an entry in a major state university's collections, plus (unsurprisingly) frequent coverage in archived Oklahoma newspapers - she easily passes WP:GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has significantly expanded since this discussion began. Penny Richards (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant accomplishments beyond "doing her job", as per Maile; significant indication of notability as per Joe and TheCatalyst31. And as Penny Richards points out, this is a new article, still in process. To call for the deletion of an article that is only three days old on the grounds of notability seems extreme. — scribblingwoman 18:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame is a serious accolade. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think this is a close call, but the coverage is just enough to meet WP:GNG. Combined with @ Maile's points on the undercoverage of women (especially in Oklahoma) I'm leaning keep.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Coming here from the notice at WiR disparaging this nomination. The pieces about her by her former employer The (Daily) Oklahoman are obviously non-independent, and it looks like the OKC Friday obit is a submission ("Joanie, you will be deeply missed", plus instructions for funeral attendance). Are there any independent sources of SIGCOV on her? JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're stretching the definition of independent a bit much here. As you said, The Daily Oklahoma was Gilmore's former employer. She stopped working there 42 years before the obituary was written. It's also very normal for obituaries to be written by someone who knew the deceased (it's pretty hard to write them otherwise). What's important in terms of assessing independence is who published it, in this case OKC Friday, which looks like a perfectly respectable local newspaper with no discernable connection to Gilmore. – Joe (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is very relevant that she worked at The Oklahoman, as evidenced by that fact being prominently emphasized in the title and body of her obituary there. Coverage of someone by the company that employed them for 28 years does not reflect attention from the world at large, as required by N. We do the same thing for obits on athletes by their former sports clubs, why wouldn't we do so for employers?

  Obituaries written by people who were affiliated with the subject are flatly not accepted as independent sources, and the prevailing view is that un-bylined obituaries in local papers are presumed to be submissions. The OKC Friday obit is indistinguishable from any of the others this very tiny (three small neighborhoods/villages in the OKC metro area) weekly paper runs, I don't see how we could assume it's not a submission. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That does not appear to be the "prevailing view" here and it's the first I've heard of it. Is there a written guideline you can point us to? – Joe (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, here are two from the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame (now refs in the article, but they weren't when you asked).

• Rodely, Billie. "Joan Gilmore and Al McLaughlin" Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame.
• "Joan Gilmore donates $30,000 for future hall of fame museum, scholarship", Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame (2022). - Penny Richards (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are also not independent or secondary, as they are coverage by the organization that gave her the award (and to which she donated $30,000). JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Joe Roe that the definition of "independent" may be getting stretched a bit here. She left the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame $30,000 in her will--what they wrote about her after she died can hardly be ascribed to her direct influence. It's also fairly common the cite halls of fame or other award-granting bodies, where they explain why someone was recognized, as in the first ref above. Penny Richards (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independence isn't only a measure of how much influence someone has on coverage of themselves; it is also a necessary quality to ensure that the coverage actually represents attention from the world at large for reasons that are of interest to the world at large. When the source is also necessarily covering themselves in a piece, that is a good indication that its interest in the subject is not derived wholly from an independent assessment of the subject's noteworthiness. This is especially the case for bodies with a financial incentive to promote positive coverage of themselves and to foster potentially lucrative relationships. What the awarding body publishes about the subject in the press release for the honor is thus not an independent commentary because it is inextricably tied to promotional coverage of itself. There are hundreds of thousands of honors awarded every year, and many of them are accompanied by SIGCOV of the recipients in the award announcements; if we were to consider all of these acceptable for GNG then I would get an article for receiving some external awards in high school, college, and grad school. None of them were remotely major, but each had a couple paragraphs on my background and detailed the reasons I was recognized. I'm not notable because no one who was completely unaffiliated with me or the awards considered those reasons important enough to publish commentary on them independently. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Jay, I think you are a bit off base with this particular person. The Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame is a significant honor; enough so that anyone that has been inducted passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO automatically. Trying to equate it to a forgettable award someone could achieve in high school or grad school is simply ludicrous. This is the highest honor given to women in the state and is operated by a government commission. We generally do keep articles on people who have received a major honor at the National or state level. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY - article has been greatly expanded and improved since being nominated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, has been recognized at the state level with two significant honors. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2023 (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.