Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedediah Bila

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. Lots of single purpose accounts it seems here. Deleting. Any concerns with the deletion of this article, please take it to

SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Jedediah Bila

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

The only accomplishment here which might be notable is her book, but it was apparently self published and is in only 19 libraries.. The Washington Times "article" is actually a press release (it says at the bottom: . Contributors are responsible for this content, which is not edited by The Washington Times) -- and even so, all they can say is that she is "gaining a reputation"., which translates for WP as not yet notable.

The article is being actively maintained by a contributor who has worked on this article and nothing else. It was accepted from AfC , & I've notified the ed. who accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. The article is a variation of her website bio page,[1] arguably copyvio. --
talk) 07:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am the editor who accepted this at AfC. There are a few Google News hits, which may be what induced me to accept it, but on closer inspection I don't see any in-depth coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think her extensive television appearances make her notable. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. But she has been interviewed numerous times and what's in the article is verifiable. She's appearing in fairly prominent shows on popular channels, writing columns, and cohosting. She's written a book, even if it was self-published. An argument for toosoon can certainly be made, but I think it's probably in the interest of our readers to provide coverage of this biographical subject and I think it's reasonable to assume that her notability will only increase over time (she was hired by Fox as a contributor in 2013). So I'm going with Keep. I think what coverage she has received, a lot of it not in the mainstream, is cumulatively sufficient to establish notability. For example on November 19, 2013 she made Mediaite's list of 50 sexiest in TV News. "Fox News contributor Jedediah Bila pops up across that network to share her opinion from time to time, but she really comes alive on the 3am broadcast of Red Eye, where her chemistry with host Greg Gutfeld is palpable." She's no Walter Cronkite, but seems to be making some waves and getting noticed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry if Im not doing everything correctly in writing this. Wikipedia is def an "inside group of ppl" who talk about rules constantly that I know nothing about being that I haven't spent much time here. I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I was reading one of my favorite websites "Twitchy" (which is an extremely popular high trafficked website), and one of the "articles" was about Jedidiah Bila. I was thinking to myself "Who?" The article spoke of her as though she was a household name, so I was curious to see who she was. So I searched Google and found her bio here on Wikipedia. I quickly read it and was satisfied. Information filed. So I happened to see it was up for deletion? I think that would be a bad idea, esp when there are obviously people looking her up to find out about her. Just my input. thanks Sedated Princess (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (comment moved here from article talk page)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

SarahStierch (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep- I think one of the most charming aspects of Wikipedia is that articles can come from amateurs. All articles need to have a square one. Readers should be more concerned about the veracity of the information rather than style. The information in the article can be verified relatively easily if it hasn't been done already. Since Ms. Bila is a significant contributor to a political viewpoint, deleting her article can be seen as an attack on that viewpoint. That is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. An editor could ask the public for a review of her book as well as comments on its reception. This will expand the article and end the process for deletion. One reason for the paucity of information of the article is the fact that she is young and is relatively new to punditry. She has a promising future and Wikipedia should offer her a place for her career to be summarized. The current article sets a reasonable foundation for future contributions.MrSottobanco (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)MrSottobanco[reply]

Keep - Notible author, media personality Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I wanted to know who she is, the information was available here. Is there any reason other than that to keep an article? (posted by Gamecock96 on talk page of deletion discussion)

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unquestionably, she is a notable person with an impressive list of accomplishments, particularly in view of her age. If the criterion is to be degree of notability, she is much more of a household name than many other subjects of Wikipedia articles which are not being proposed for deletion. Is it possible that the initiative to delete this article is coming from those with an ideological ax to grind? MAGoldberg (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it's possible that ideology may influence deletion nominations... but I'm sure that's not the case here. It's also not particularly likely that others (particularly Cerebellum, who approved the initial article) would just happen to agree solely on that basis. Discussions (and nominations) are centred around notability requirements. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:BASIC. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:43, 10 December 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.