Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Jacobs (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion focused around whether she was notable before her untimely death, or whether this is a WP:ONEEVENT or WP:MEMORIAL article. Additional sourcing was added during the course of the discussion to demonstrate pre-mortem notability, sufficient to change several people's minds, and it looks to me that the discussion was trending toward a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jacobs

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

fails WP:GNG , WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The accident she died in is notable, she is not. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you misunderstand WP:NOTMEMORIAL which reads: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Jacobs passes WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Much (though not all) coverage of Jacobs was certainly sparked by her death, but the coverage passes WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: This is not the same person as was covered in the referenced previous discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So why is that misleading tag on this AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So noted that 1st AfD nomination was for Ruth Jacobs the actress (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Jacobs), not this Ruth Jacobs, even though this AfD prominently states "2nd nomination" in its AfD's title. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE, if performed, should have turned up substantive coverage of Jacobs in the years before her tragic death. I have added some of this coverage to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jacobs passes WP:GNG because coverage of her is both extensive and detailed. [1] I created the article. I would not have done so if she was being covered merely in passing as part of the event. While it is true that the tragic nature of her death sparked the current coverage, Her accomplishments were being covered before her death.[2] And the intensity of in-depth coverage she is now receiving makes her WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely sad but no evidence she meets WP:GNG. She has a common name, but I wasn't able to find sufficient coverage of her prior to the obituaries. @E.M.Gregory: long-term coverage is required, all articles are from the past 24 hours except for one last month about her being a new hire at the company —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder. I did, before starting the article. Coverage exists over several years. Will add.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: FYI "look harder" isn't the most helpful suggestion in an AfD. Please give us links to the coverage you've found that supports your case, or let us know when the refs are in the article itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: what policy are you citing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:NRV: "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." Let us know when they've been added to the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: what policy are you citing when you assert that long-term coverage is required?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Substantive, pre-Amtrak coverage of Jacobs (re:start-ups) is in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:BASIC: "extensive and detailed" coverage is not always sufficient: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." All the references so far indicates this is a WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL situation. Extensive obituaries are expected for everyone associated with the event. It should be clear they would have met the GNG prior to this event (ie could they have qualified for article have been last week?). WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE would help your case and may still appear. For example, there are victims of 9/11 who have WP biographies because, even though they were known for being killed on 9/11, long-term coverage appeared for various reasons (posthumous awards; things named in their honor, etc). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting interpretation, but not what WP:BASIC actually says. Several of the other victims fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT, a policy with which I am familiar and which I believe does not fit Jacobs. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Which Jacobs has received. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation: that is what WP:BASIC says. Very specifically. Whether or not Jacobs is one-event is what is debatable. I don't see how she qualifies; neither did the nominator of this article. The other stuff you've added, like the Detroit Nation group, is just not that notable. It really does not qualify as a start-up company, as there are no indications it's even a business. There is coverage of the group and other regional groups like it that mention her, but she is not the subject of these articles, and the notability for the group and her company is just not there. But AfDs run a full seven days for a reason, so hopefully you will find something. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just went through this for Dan Fredinburg, concluding with no consensus/keep. That discussion may be relevant here. (I vote keep for this one, too.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT MEMORIAL. References such as obits and memorials should not prove notability when there is nothing notable in the career, except for a fe exceptional papers (we accept the NYT and the Times). Basic policies such as NOT MEMORIAL are more important than the GNG guideline--which specifically says that meeting the GNG is not necessarily reason to have an article. And, needlessto say, even if we did follow precedent, a non-consensus close is no precedent in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. 70.192.71.123 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous edit is by a SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Epic Genius (talk) ± 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) I was notified that sourcing has improved with reliable sources added, and that there have been similar such pages created after the subject died. Thus, I have struck out my delete vote. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, she wasn't notable before her death. 50.248.37.26 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another ONEEVENT deal, huh. If her prior accomplishments were so great as to warrant a Wikipedia article independent of the coverage of her death, there'd already BE a Wikipedia article on her. When was the date the article was created? Mm, right. Yesterday. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Many notable people lack articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is parallel case in which a Tech CEO died young and an article was immediately posted on WP supported by articles written after his death and by an article on his hiring as CEO Dave Goldberg (of a company considerably larger than ApprenNet. I found his page because an article in Forbes this morning compares the two lives. Here: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nha Trang. 75.80.160.109 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-death gains in notability. As User:Wikimandia predicted, Jacobs has begun to gain notability via institutions created in her memory. Article needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per everyone else. I am not seeing anything that indicates notability, even after her death. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a difference between the Fredinburg case and this. Fredinburg was notable before his death; Jacobs was not. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, with Jacobs, there have not been the kind of sourcing gaps (place of birth, early career) found with Fredinberg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Dan Fredinburg and Rachel Jacobs articles are remarkably similar; sourcing for Fredinburg's notable activities comes overwhelmingly from articles written after his death. AFDs on individuals currently drawing major press attention make sense to WP insiders, but they contribute to a widespread belief that WP editorial choices are wildly capricious.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention insensitive. During that window in which people are Googling an individual who has recently and tragically died—someone receiving tributes and widespread independent media coverage for their life and achievements—they come to Wikipedia and see a big ugly dismissive billboard. It's not a good look for Wikipedia. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vesuvius Dogg is right. Attitude and insensitivity are a huge turn-off to readers, and potential editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing Jacobs notability here; saying that some readers will be offended by seeing an AfD tag is NOT a valid reason for keeping the article and is completely ridiculous. Anyway, Fredinburg was an important executive and inventor with several patents. Jacobs just started some start up. Most coverage on the page refers to the crash itself and is not about Jacobs the individual. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredinburg and Jacobs are both WP:NOTABLE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterize the articles on the page, all of which discuss Jacobs in detail. Every detail of her life form birth to how she got her CEO job is sourced to multiple articles. Hundreds of articles about the crash exist; they are not on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is coverage. WP editors have a justifiable impulse to delete articles in certain categories: articles written by SPAs, articles written by paid editors, articles written by articles created at time of death, articles by wanna be politicians, wannabe famous garage bands, etc. We have to set our feelings aside and apply the only metric we have for notability: the judgement of reliable secondary sources. Sometimes there are objective measures: all Members of Parliament, all Olympic gold Medalists. But more usually we need to rely on the judgement of the press. In this case, we have intense coverage of a person's life and career in multiple major news outlets. This is what constitutes notability as per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search for reliable secondary sources written before Jacobs' death yielded a 2010 interview here with Time magazine and an article in Technically Philly here, illustrating that Jacobs was notable before her death. I have added those to the article. Coverage since Jacobs' death has been substantial and extensive, with features in national publications such as CNN, USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Daily News and Bloomberg. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, edit, expand There seems to be more interest to the public that meets the eye at first glance at this article about Rachel Jacobs. The circumstances of her death and the fact that she hasn't been identified as being among the injured or casualties, at first. Her life seems interesting enough on their own, notwithstanding the tragic and somewhat unclear circumstances of death. This article can be deleted ay any point in time after it has had the chance to be properly written and presented, which it hasn't had yet.Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am usually anti-deletion, she's the CEO of a non-notable company. If the company was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, then I'd feel people in that company may have more notability (if they pass other Wikipedia requirements, of course). Agreeing with the other delete nominations above, though the article has been expanded and may survive this AFD if her notability apart from her tragic death can be expanded upon. Find those sources! Gatemansgc (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's amazing how many companies don't have a Wikipedia page, for example, Ascend Learning here:[4] and Pragma Corporation here:[5] for example. Both ought to have had pages years ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ApprenNet. Sourced exclusively to articles published before the Amtrak derailment. I will continue to source it over the next couple of days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: This is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. The possible deletion of one article leads to the creation of others. Hooray for information! Gatemansgc (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I continue to maintain that it cannot be assumed that an individual killed in a disaster was non-notable merely because the article was prompted by the death. Post-death news coverage can document and validate notability, as I believe that it does in this case. See, for example: Dave Goldberg. article on Tech CEO written in response to tragic, eraly death. The two CEOs were compared this morning in Forbes Here: [6]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early iVoters will not have known that ApprenNet, the company of which Jacobs was CEO is now blue-linked; that her very recent hire was covered by the Philadelphia Inquirer and other news outlets; that interviews with her from 2011 and from 2014 (about her activities promoting Detroit) have been added, and that coverage of her pro-Detroit activities extends back years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change my vote. Additional sources indicate her notability while living, plus lasting legacy, including scholarship fund named in her honor etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:33, 21 May 2015 (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.