Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Livon

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. Sources do not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Opinions of new editors are given little weight, due to their likely inexperience with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Livon (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)

WP:FRINGEBLP of a probably non-notable subject. I just cut the WP:PROMO and unsourced material, but obviously feel free to revert partially or in full if you can verify the information. Tagged for notability for nine years. Analysis of sources below; don't think they combine to establish notability, and I couldn't find anything else.

1. [1] Apparently reliable (Minnesota Monthly), but it's an interview.
2. [2] Not reliable—archived version of her website.
3. [3] Not reliable—YouTube video posted on her own channel.
4. [4] Not reliable—YouTube video posted on her channel.
5. Dead link.
6. [5] Reliable (Star Tribune), but local coverage. All the other RS I could find ([6], [7]) are mirrors of this article, which was presumably from a syndicate.
7. Her own book; unreliable primary source.
8. Her own book; unreliable primary source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable psychic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a mirror of unrelaible youtube material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A number of other sources have been added since this nom. I haven't had time to evaluate them yet, but at a quick glance I see more local coverage and some more cites to her books. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:PROMO - Reverted for some sourced material. Removed dead links and Youtube sources. Proposed for meeting WP:GNG criteria- Found significant coverage from reliable independent news sites, see references. Noted as a regular guest since 2009 on local Twin Cities news station KSTP-TV ABC for Twin Cities Live program.WikiBotEli (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiBotEli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. @AleatoryPonderings: Any further discussion on this page? As this is my first edit, would love to hear feedback.WikiBotEli (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WikiBotEli: Thanks for the ping, and for your revisions. I looked over the sources you added and, I'm sorry to say, they don't affect my opinion too much. WP:AUD says that attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability, and from what I can see the sources are largely local or of interest only to enthusiasts of the paranormal. In addition, a number of them are interviews, which are generally not a good sign of notability (although I have recently come to the opposite conclusion in another context). I did notice that one source you added ([8]) is from a North Dakota TV channel, which is not local to Minnesota. But it is also an interview, so of limited value in assessing notability. My opinion that this article should be deleted remains unchanged, but some of the sources you added do make it a somewhat closer call in my view. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @AleatoryPonderings:. Correct me if I'm wrong but does the WP:AUD only apply to notability requirements for companies as it is under the WP:COMPANY or does it apply to people as well? If applicable, I have sourced at least 4 news articles that are produced by news organizations that have statewide coverage. Per WP:AUD, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." More than one has been provided.

Review of select sources:

1. [9] reliable, independent, statewide coverage (Minnesota Monthly)
2. [10] reliable, independent, statewide coverage.
3. [11] reliable, independent, statewide coverage (Star Tribune).
4. [12] reliable, independent, local coverage.
5. [13] reliable, independent, local coverage.
6. [14] reliable, independent, local coverage.
7. [15] reliable, independent, statewide coverage.
8. [16] national podcast
9. [17] national radio show
10. [18] and [19] local radio show

As for this individual conforming to the WP:GNG I believe the sources provided support this. Let me know your thoughts on my response? WikiBotEli (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiBotEli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• @WikiBotEli: You're correct that WP:AUD applies to corporations, not people; that was my mistake, and I have struck it. The links you provided above do indicate at least local interest, but again many of them are interviews and some of them (e.g., [20] and [21]) are the same article republished by different newspapers. I will leave it to the community to decide whether these sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the additional sourcing adds nothing to the quality of those already identified as not satisfying WP:BLPSOURCES by AleatoryPonderings, unfortunately. ——Serial 16:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Reading through this discussion it appears that all of the general notability requirements have been met. Significant and continuous coverage for years (at least 11) from reliable sources, including: KSTP (Minnesota), KARE 11 (Minnesota), North Dakota Today (North Dakota) and numerous national featured articles and appearances in the news, radio shows and podcasts - per @WikiBotEli: previous edits. After the recent changes the article has 25 sources, many of which are from reputable, reliable, and independent news agencies. The primary criteria for General Notability Guidelines of “significant coverage,” “reliable,” and “independent” have clearly been met beyond the minimum requirements WP:GNG. @Serial Number 54129: referenced WP:BLPSOURCES which states “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.” I see all of the sources as being valid, reliable sources WP:RS. With the WP:PROMO having been deleted, what continues to be specific issues up for discussion? Is it just a matter of opinion for notability or is there specific reasoning that the original issues that we’re up for discussion have not been remediated?Info TIC (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Info TIC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.