Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeri Ellsworth

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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri Ellsworth

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

This is a non-notable biographical entry Urda (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not the first, nor the only, individual to develop their own IC at a given time, run a store, or work for a high profile company. This reads as if self-promotion from a fanbase, with minimal actual contribution to a given field. Urda (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an issue with the sourcing or how significant the sourcing is because WP:N does not say anything about needing to be first or only.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she easily passes notability searching for news articles about her. Amazingly, she is mentioned in Finish, German, and Italian news too. And in financial and gaming contexts. She easily passes the threshold for general notability. —EncMstr (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NYT and other mentions demonstrate notability (thought the references on the page need work). squibix (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of references from reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. --Teancum (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources, clear case for notability, easily passes WP:BIO. --El on ka 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NY Times and LifeHacker writeups provide plenty of verifiable in-depth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. Article does need a bit of cleanup like deleting most of the external links and rewording some close paraphrasing from the LifeHacker article but a definite keep. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:34, 27 February 2013 (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.