Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Pike (second nomination)

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: obviously public figure, an almost exactly even split on whether she's public enough, no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Pike

When Process Goes Bad. I originally tagged this as a {{db-bio}} after noticing that some of the article content (which I have since removed) was intentionally misleading in an attempt to give the subject some desperately needed notability oomph. Fifteen minutes later, an admin came along and turned it into a {{prod}} with the single-word rationale "notability". After more than five days had passed, and no admin had taken action, a regular editor came along, pulled the prod tag, and decided to initiate a merger discussion where, unsurprisingly, there has been exactly zero discussion. On top of all this, I just discovered a few minutes ago that the article's a G4 recreation of deleted content in the first place!! So, obviously, I think it needs to come here for a full AfD. My !vote is to delete and salt the page. Subject's only assertion of notability is as third mike on a little-known radio talk show; the rest of the article (what little there is) is unsubstantiated fan cruft and a photo. If anyone wishes to move this material over to the radio show's article, that's fine, but as we know, a "merge" consensus = a "do nothing" consensus, so I say full delete. Aaron 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect per nom. Valrith 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Do you want to add Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz onto this AfD? --Daniel Olsen 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. While accepting that process may have gone bad here, I wonder why being a radio personality on Air America Radio is not considered sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:BIO. In addition, Ben Mankiewicz should definitely not be added onto this AfD, as he is one of the programming hosts for Turner Classic Movies, a notable network with very few programming hosts. --Metropolitan90 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't intend to add Cenk Uygur or Ben Mankiewicz to this AfD, nor do I intend to list them separately. This is purely about Pike; being third mike isn't notable in and of itself. I should, however, note that their show has only been on Air America for about three weeks now, while the Pike article has existed since at least June 2005. In any case, being an Air America personality does not confer one with inherent notability, because Air America is not a radio network in the same way that, say, NBC is a television network; while almost all NBC affiliates carry the entire NBC schedule, very few AAR affiliates carry the entire AAR lineup. And while morning drive is generally considered the "prime time" of radio, it's a death slot for a politically-oriented show like this one. It's entirely possible they had more listeners when they were on Sirius. I can't imagine why they jumped to AAR in the first place, unless it was about money. --Aaron 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She's certainly alot more than "third mic" on The Young Turks and, per Metropolitan90, a popular radio personalilty on a national radio network. Per the comment about AAR affiliates not carrying this show, at least 38 plus the XM Satellite Radio broadcast are. [1] --Marriedtofilm 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as national radio show host. Disagreeing with the political position of a radio show is not grounds for deletion and protection from recreation of an article. Edison 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: From WP:NPA: Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to: ... Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Warning left on user's talk page. --Aaron 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A statement about Wikipedia policy, as I made above in support of my vote, cannot be reasonably taken as a personal attack, so it was inappropriate for the nominator to leave a warning on my talk page. Per WP:NPA"It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks." Aaron should re-read his comments in the nomination, where he says that editors put in content which was "intentionally misleading." Edison 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron, by those guidelines, you've wiolated WP:NPA via your nomination not assuming good faith: "was intentionally misleading in an attempt to give the subject some desperately needed notability oomph". That's questioning an editor's character and intentions. I'm restoring the portion you've deleted, and adding clarification. *Sparkhead 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Being a national radio show host is notable enough. I think it is silly to try to distinguish between "third mic" and main hosts. What, national radio shows are limited to conferring notability only their two biggest hosts? As a technical note, previous AfD is non-binding, and WP:CSD G4 does not apply, because of change in circumstances with the show going national.-- danntm ^T _C 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (probably without redir). Common name, plus AAR just went bankrupt.  ;-( WP:OR / WP:CITE not withstanding... /Blaxthos 07:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Air America is remaining in operations while its under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.[2] Many times companies declare Chapter 11 and emerge from it (United Airlines, for instance). Having a common name (I don't think Jill Pike is all that common, btw) is not a WP:BIO basis for excluding a notable person. --Marriedtofilm 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete / protect per nom. Deizio talk 09:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the excluding of a merge reasoning, this article cites no sources nor really claims notability. I agree with nom and also take note the lack of sources for anything, if the external link is suppose to contain information that can be used as a source it should be linked directly to that section. --NuclearZer0 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment / Update A few references and sources added to article. --Marriedtofilm 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete claims to notability look thin, no evidence of multiple non-trivial discussion in reliable independent sources. Guy 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Furthermore, this is an example of when process goes good. Instead of speedying an article that we should include, we've reviewed it, added information, and may very well keep it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Radio host on a notable network. Gamaliel 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In spite of the apparent bad faith of the nominator, there's not enough there for an article. Merging one sentence to the show is plausible, but I don't know if it's necessary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable radio host. --Tbeatty 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nomination. Crockspot 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect as recreation of previously deleted content. ergot 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Pike is very popular for a variety of reasons, most obviously her headlining show on the Air America Radio network. Elruin 4:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC-5) — Possible single purpose account: Elruin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Please assume good faith. Judging by his few contribs, he doesn't seem like he's here for a single purpose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment / Note to Closing Administrator A user is consistently removing verifiable material from the article (not inserting citation tags) which is an assumption of editor bad faith and is violation of WP:POV. This particularly should not be done during an afd as it could unduly influence editors opinions. --Marriedtofilm 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be me; but the material is not verified, nor do I believe it's verifiable. As it might be considered negative, WP:BLP requires it be removed rather than be cited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Due to her striking good looks, Jill has attracted a lot of attention, particularly from male listeners" is not a controversial statement - the US News and World Report citation on that line (which you tried to delete) actually cites the Young Turks as their source on that statement [3]. "Striking good looks" is subjective, but the rest is NOT impossible to verify. These user POV deletions were improper during an afd. --Marriedtofilm 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not impossible to verify, but not verified. In general, uncited information in articles, particularly about WP:LIVING persons, may be removed at any time. Furthermore, if every line has a "citation needed" tag, it makes it more apparent that there's no article to be kept here. In other words, with your line there, it's less likely to be kept. But it's your call. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The comment/note was about deleting verifiable information, which now seems to be conceded, not that everything is verified. Your sudden "citation needed" tag onslaught on this stub has been noted. --Marriedtofilm 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given. SchmuckyTheCat 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Young Turks (talk show); no need for a merge. Bad faith nom and transparent political voting: Wikidrama at its most risible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with the network's page. --Tony 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable personality on nationwide network, with citations to major press sources. Derex 05:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sounds interesting. has some sources. --Alpharigel 18:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as per nom. Not an encyclopedically notable radio personality Bwithh 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ok, salting no. The AfD is from 2005, so that's hardly a mere recreation. ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Admittedly I don't listen to the show, but from what I can tell, it's the regular morning show for a substantial syndicated network (albeit one that has apparently declared bankruptcy). Every reference I see to the show refers to this individual as one of the three major contributors. I don't really have a major objection to merging the material, but I'd rather see that done in through the article's discussion page. As a side note, I know I can be dense at times, but I don't see how this article not being deleted speedily is a failure of process. Whether or not this discussion results in deletion, there is easily enough here to avoid A7. ScottW 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete nn, per nom --Strothra 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First AfD was over a year ago; may not have been notable then, but seems to be now as nation wide radio talk show host....I'd be willing to bet a nation wide TV host would pass notability. Smaller audience (radio) equals smaller notability, but it's notability all the same. AuburnPilot^Talk 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ScottW. Catchpole 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per danntm. Xlation 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge w/Young Turks. She is a notable radio personality, and there are many people of similar "fame" with Wiki listings. --Writer@Large 04:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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.