Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannelle So

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jannelle So

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. an unremarkable career. her IMDB entry doesn't show much. [1] LibStar (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a court side reporter for the Philippine Basketball Association in the 1990s count for something? –H T D 03:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if it is covered significantly in third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is covered significantly in third party coverage? –H T D 08:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that means if her being a court side reporter was covered in independent reliable sources, something that could be difficult to prove given that she was active in the 90's and any info from that era can be pretty difficult to find. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. This says "So was a courtside reporter in the Philippine Basketball Association before she took a big risk by leaving for the States in 2003", amongst other things. –H T D 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a newspaper column though, and I'm not sure if column coverage is considered a claim to notability. ~~I'll remain neutral on this for now, but unless someone else finds more coverage I'm leaning towards delete.~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of fact from columns are reliable sources, unless it's a gossip rag or it is purely opinion. I don't see the rationale in segregating regular articles and "columns", as long as WP:RS is concerned. Either it's reliable or not. –H T D 11:04, 14 December 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, czar ♔ 03:02, 21 December 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, Courcelles 08:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue here is that Ms. So is apparently a popular personality based on fansites, blogs, facebook, etc., there is a clear lack of WP:RS so far. This is a hazard when the subject is popular in an expatriate/immigrant community. Despite that, she actually has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Those sources include a profile in The Phillipine Daily Inquirer, receiving a significant award for a report on human trafficking, and being a regular columnist for the leading Phillipine news site in the US. IMO, these qualify under the WP:GNG--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she won a major award, which to me is an automatic claim to notability. There's also major coverage of her from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:26, 5 January 2014 (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.