Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Wynne Webber

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wynne Webber

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

With just 1240 Google search results and 4 Google News mentions she fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was created yesterday, less than 24 hours ago. Perhaps it needs a little more time for the article creator to develop it or for a WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the original nom, articles are not assessed based on the number of search results that come up after Googling them. For obvious reasons, this is a poor criteria as you may get tens of thousands of results for inconsequential searches, and some noteworthy topics may not receive a particularly large amount of search results. See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Instead, articles should be assessed based on the criteria such as WP:GNG. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination rationale is flawed, as IphisOfCrete points out. WP:GOOGLEHITS says that we shouldn't count search engine hits as a measure of notability. The thing that matters is independent coverage in reliable sources. I looked on Newspapers.com and found two articles specifically about Webber and her work:
- "Tough, yet tender at the centre: Webber's heroine struggles through range of issues related to her time and age" by Verne Clemence, Saskatoon Star-Phoenix (May 27, 2000)
- "Labour History Story Brought to Life on Stage" by Matt Olson, The Regina Leader-Post (April 27, 2019)

In addition to the sources already used in the article, I think that's enough to demonstrate notability per WP:NEXIST. I added these links to the article in a Further reading section so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone was remarking that they thought Jennifer Wynne Webber did not have a high enough number of search engine results. However, under Invalid Criteria it states, “Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online.” JE1110 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Citations and additional articles have been added which support notability. Many articles and reviews of Webber's earlier work are from 2000 and 2001 and are not available online and so there was some question about how to cite those. Also, the nomination for removal based on lack of Google hits does not seem to be a valid reason to support deletion, particularly in the case of women playwrights who are often less known and therefore less Googled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McASah3637 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Apologies for not signing the above comment. Am new to this and did not see how to do so. Will try adding signature to this now. [[User:McASah3637] — Preceding unsigned comment added by McASah3637 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The reason for the original deletion nomination has been unsupported and has been proved as not part of Wikipedia criteria. All other comments are in support of keeping this article. A lot of changes have been made and a lot of new information has been added. All info has reliable citations. I believe this article should be kept. JE1110 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article demonstrates consistent local coverage across three provinces and at least half a dozen cities, accompanied by a series of local awards, and some recognition by national organisations. Independent coverage includes local papers, arts councils, awards committees, and university presses. Some of the sources are even news articles solely focused on the article subject or her work, which goes above the minimum WP:GNG and WP:BASIC requirements; in my opinion the strongest of these are the Nanaimo Bulletin and Saskatoon Express articles. Now that these improvements have been made to the page, it seems clear that article does not fail WP:NBIO. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2020 (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.