Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Seavy-Nesper

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Seavy-Nesper

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

WP:BLP of a radio producer, which is referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media provided at all. Being an "online media" producer for a radio show, even a national one, is not a notability criterion that guarantees a Wikipedia article to every such person who exists -- it would be fine if she could show enough media coverage about her to pass WP:GNG, but not if the only sources you can provide are the self-published websites of the show she works on, her alma mater and an organization she's a member of: media other than her own paycheque provider need to be writing about her work to make her notable for it. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I am the creator. My only dog in the fight is having decided to clear up my doubt about whether she is the Molly C. V. Nestor i keep hearing about, or not.
   I have no idea whether we customarily apply identical standards to people associated with profit-driven org'ns and to people associated with gov't-grant receiving non-profits. (Perhaps it's irrelevant, but i notice that the POTUS considers her employer less reliable than his financial contributors!)
   (BTW, please help me dispel my illusion that there are no better sources than the respective degree-granting institutions, as who holds their academic degrees, than those institutions' own statements.)
   Hmm, John Hancock is giving me another 22 years, but the trend in my editing rate leaves me unwilling to undertake a self-remediation project at this point.
--Jerzy•t 04:03 & :08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

An educational institution is certainly an authoritative source for who did or didn't graduate from it, but that's not the point: the point is that its information about who graduated from it is not a notability-conferring source, but a primary source. That is, it can be used for supplementary verification of the fact after she's already been shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG — but it's not a source that helps her get over GNG. And no, our notability and sourcing standards do not change based on whether the subject works for a profit or non-profit enterprise — they still require reliable source coverage about her, in media independent of her own paycheque provider, no matter what kind of organization or company she works for. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (tentative), as the article has no real RS. I did some preliminary searching, but could only find twitter, linkedin, and other such non-RS. Glad to change position if someone can find several instances of legitimate RS. Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete radio producers are almsot never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2017 (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.