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. ✗plicit 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Christmas[edit]

[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)

Article subject requests deletion. See VRT Ticket 2022040710005871. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If the subject has WP:BLP concerns about some of the information in the article, then we can certainly discuss and address those — but a writer who was nominated for the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour, a notable award that passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, simply cannot be deemed off limits as an article topic. If her name is in that list at all, then we must be allowed to have an article about her, and there can be no "every other nominee in the history of the award is notable except for this one, because reasons" carveouts. Again, if she has concerns about the accuracy or relevance of some of the biographical information, those can certainly be addressed — but a shortlisted nominee for a notable literary award is, by definition, a person about whom we have to have something.
There also isn't a lack of SIGCOV; there's just been a lack of Wikipedians actually using her coverage to support the article's content, but she gets literally hundreds of hits in ProQuest. I've replaced all the article's sourcing (some of which was deadlinked anyway) with better stuff, and removed all the private biographical stuff (like the names of her parents and former spouses) that I couldn't find better sourcing for and might well have been the root of her issue. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". She hasn't won it, and has only been nominated once, so I don't think that is enough to establish her notability. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shortlisted nominations for high-level awards that curate shortlists of finalists most certainly are sufficient basis for a Wikipedia article. They always have been, and the test has never actually required multiple renominations for an award of that type — multiple renominations might be necessary in the case of something like the Nobel Prize, where anybody can be "nominated" at will but the committee doesn't release any special shortlist of finalists before announcing the selected winner, but they're certainly not and never have been necessary in the case of an award that releases a shortlist of finalists between the "every eligible submission gets considered" and "announcement of the winner" phases of the process. Nobody would ever argue, for example, that an Oscar nominee is non-notable just because he was only nominated once and didn't win — if he can be properly sourced as a shortlisted Oscar nominee at all, then he's notable for being shortlisted. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat If that is the case, perhaps the text on WP:ANYBIO should be updated to reflect that, unless it is covered by a different policy? FWIW I'm not arguing that the subject is not notable, and I'm not trying to be difficult. I am quite new to being active on Wikipedia and still learning the ropes - I just clicked on the WP links in your post and tried to follow the logic from there. It seems to me that any nominee of an Oscar award is likely to have lots of other reporting covering them, so the notability argument would never realistically come down to "they were nominated for an Oscar". Jane Christmas seems to have been covered by several newspapers so I don't think the argument in this case needs to come down to the nomination. But conceivably if she hadn't been covered by any reliable sources (beyond being named as being on the prize shortlist), maybe her books had only been reviewed on minor blogs, her indie publisher didn't know how to get her any decent coverage and she was media-shy, then to a noob like me reading the WP:ANYBIO policy and not knowing about the other policy or convention that you described, I would feel that the nomination wouldn't suffice. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, In the context of not very notable plus her request, I'd respect the reasons to delete. CT55555 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "not very notable" nominee of an inherently notable literary award. Every single person whose name appears in that award's nominees or winners table must be either a blue link or a potential future blue link, and there cannot be any special "except this one" exceptions to that. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I may have cast my vote based on what I wish policy was, rather than what policy is. I've scored it out. Count me as an ~~abstain~~ and I'll watch and see if anyone persuades me to jump back into this one. CT55555 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to Keep based on the conversations that have happened here. CT55555 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how can we see the ticket - better understand the reason for the request? CT55555 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment You could post a request at the noticeboard asking that another of the VRT volunteer team members to verify the substance of the request in the ticket. Mention the ticket number if you do that. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith and believe you. I'm just trying to understand if there is a safety or privacy issue. I have sympathy for her request, and am suggesting that more information might persuade anyone on the fence. CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with "trust but verify," to quote a former U.S. president. Alas, I cannot elaborate further than passing along the article subject's request. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First few hits are an article in the Toronto Star, next is a review in the Hamilton Spectator of her book. She's been nominated for the Leacock award, so is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The author absolutely meets notability guidelines, having published a number of books with major publishers and being a finalist for a major award. Finally, the author's website even has a section titled 8 Things About Me That You Won’t Find on Wikipedia. If we deleted the article we'd cause trouble for the author, who'd have to rewrite her website. (Note: That previous line's a joke. Seriously, we don't delete articles about notable subjects merely b/c the subject wants the article deleted.)--SouthernNights (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I would like to acquiesce to the request at hand, the encyclopedia isn’t meant to be partial. Information for better or worse about a subject deemed notable will be included. The cases where it is handpicked are problematic and corrupts the integrity of Wikipedia. She meets WP:GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, I'm the subject of the page under consideration for deletion. I've read the threads so far and while I appreciate the effort to keep me on Wikipedia (obviously, it's up to you guys) I wonder whether there isn't too much biographical litter on Wikipedia, and whether it somehow clutters and degrades the reputation and purpose of Wikipedia -- that pretty much every Tom, Dick, and Jane can have a page on Wikipedia. Maybe I'm wrong and have not understood WP's ethos. I do appreciate Bearcat for removing the names of my parents and former spouses. Thanks. And if my page is opposed for deletion, perhaps someone could update it further: I've been a finalist TWICE for the Leacock Medal (for And Then There Were Nuns, and for Open House: A Life in Thirty-two Moves). What further prompted my request to have my page deleted is the somewhat inconsistent criteria of WP. For instance, I have tried to add my name to WP's list of Writers from Hamilton, Ontario, only to have it constantly removed. Why? I lived and worked in Hamilton for 25 years; most of my books reference my time in Hamilton, and yet I'm not included on that list. I can tell you that there are people on that list who were not born in Hamilton (so that's obviously not a criteria) or who lived in Hamilton for fewer years than I did. Finally, may I add that there are a gazillion WP pages and not equal number of editors to update them or to fine-tune them. I salute your considerable voluntary efforts, and I know public users like me appreciate it very much. Cheers. 119.198.185.99 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can request an edit to your own page by following these instructions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Request_edit/Instructions#:~:text=To%20request%20an%20edit%20to,section%2C%20below%20the%20new%20heading.

As your connections to Hamilton are verifiable, I've updated the article to reflect them. I would guess the issue that you were facing was that the article did not have a verifiable source in it about your connections to Hamilton, but it does now. If now see if I can find sources about the award nominations. CT55555 (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2022 (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.