From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Shelly Jamison

Shelly Jamison (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP1E. Basically, appeared in playboy, quit her job as a result & got a very short presenting gig as a result of the notoriety That's it. Its far too little information to base an article on and is a classic 1E Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep First of all, it was certainly two reported events at the time of the nomination; appearing in Playboy and then the sideline reporter job for Rollergames. WP:BLP1E is not a valid excuse. I have added and sourced additional information about her later career as the first female Assistant Fire Chief in the fifth largest city in America. Trackinfo ( talk) 07:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
First female assistant fire chief in the fifth largest city in the USA seems a stretch for notability though significant achievement, especially when the department has a female chief. Aside from that, this is a truly deceptive contribution with blatant refspamming in the article. Basically the sources about the subject are either non-independant or not reliable or both. The reliable sources are about the chief and any mention of the subject is a quote as an official spokesperson which adds nothing to notability. So basically, everything verifiable about her fire career is a primary source. Very poor. Spartaz Humbug! 14:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The nomination could be regarded as a response to not reading the article in detail. Now you are being disingenuous in order to win a deletion. The Arizona Republic and KPNX are major news media in Phoenix, otherwise known as WP:RS. Note: KPNX was not the TV station she worked for early in her career and in that article she was acting as a fire department spokesperson. The City of Phoenix's own website and the Fire Department's website are not anything the subject controls. Plus she was (sourced) on the cover of Playboy, controversy reported by the Chicago Sun Times, Phoenix New Times and USA Today AND she was a lead personality on a nationally distributed television program as reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. So what exactly is non-reliable or primary? Trackinfo ( talk) 15:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The information added about her being purportedly an assistant fire chief was incorrect and has been removed. No opinion about this nomination, I see two good sources counting towards GNG in the footnotes so it is a close call. Carrite ( talk) 02:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I think this lady has had a strong journey from Playboy appearance to Deputy Fire Chief and instructor in Emergency Management. More than one event notability. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Calling this NC at this point would be easy, but given the WP:BLP concerns, I think it's worth another week for a closer analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 8 September 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.