Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janneke Parrish (2nd 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article.

By the way, User:Say ocean again, you are a very new editor but users are encouraged to improve articles during AFD discussions so you shouldn't have been reverting edits seeking to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janneke Parrish

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO; at best WP:BIO1E. Also unambiguous WP:COI as page created and curated by the subject. Page was previously subject of PROD and deleted. Note my recent PROD tag was (appropriately) declined by Primefac: "cannot be nominated under PROD because of the previous AFD, and cannot be nominated under WP:G4 because it is significantly different than the original". Cabrils (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered in the Guardian [1] and the NY Times [2]. With the rest of the coverage for this activist, it should be fine for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and [3] and some textbooks talking about her in the last few years, showing sustained coverage [4] and [5]. Her situation at work is discussed here [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to AppleToo. The serious WP:COI with the creator is an issue, but not the primary one. Per nom, Parrish is notable for one event: being fired from Apple as it relates to #AppleToo. 99.99999% of sources are specifically about AppleToo: nearly all about her firing. The sources Oaktree b shares are the same topic, sustained or otherwise. The very first article about #AppleToo was in Vice, some weeks later The Guardian covered it, and of the hundreds of results during the first month, there is nothing about Parrish. Her first mention is in The New York Times about the recording that was leaked and #AppleToo. For the following month Business Insider & Vox. That's 3 sources for #AppleToo as a standalone event—and BI is derivative of NYT.

Only 5 sources out of all of the sources about her are not related to her being fired. Only 2 of those are not related to #AppleToo. There's no case for WP:BLP2E here. Say ocean again (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I weigh events individually to determine notability. The Information and Stat News do not meet WP:EVENTCRIT. (I can only read the first few paragraphs from The Information, but the title also says it's about her firing, so it is, by extension, related to the same event.) The time span between them is only a month and there's no lasting impact or sustained coverage of the event. ... viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. It's a bit misleading to say there are multiple sources from before #AppleToo, when there is only one: The Austin American-Statesman. She was not elected and it was local election so it fails WP:NPOL (not widely or significantly covered, either). The notable event is #AppleToo. WP:BIO1E says: In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Without Parrish's firing, there are only two intellectually independent sources. Vox and NYT. Coverage about her role in #AppleToo begins on the day she was fired from The Verge (Oct. 15, 2021: 3 months after #AppleToo began). Her role is described in a variety of sources as being one of the people who shared and posted the stories beginning in September: Parrish and Cher Scarlett, an Apple software engineer, then began sharing these stories on Medium. In Business Journals she describes analyzing the data. I went in and read every single employee story so that we could put together statistics on what they were about. Wired describes her as a founder of Apple Together, but there's nothing beyond this mention. WP:WEIGHT is a significant factor here for all of this, especially it is a WP:AUTOBIO. The firing is what is persistent here in the context of #AppleToo, so the question remains if her firing is a standalone event from #AppleToo, which would be the single qualifier for an article about her.

Separate comment: I don't think the Kara Alaimo source can be used. The author writes Parrish started #AppleToo. That seems false based on the sources (especially after having read them chronologically). While some later sources describe Parrish as a co-founder, none of the early ones do. They describe her as a leader for her role in sharing the stories on Medium. The Vice source says a pseudonymous Apple service provider "Fudge" co-founded the group and the vast majority say the founders were Scarlett and a group of anonymous 15 employees in Fudge's Discord server. This is part of the reason why I consider narrative to be a primary source, even if it's in a book. I am more wary of it with Parrish given that this is the second autobiography from her. Say ocean again (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nom is on the basis of WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies.

We've got WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues because of the test on WP:PSEUDO:

Is the individual substantially covered? Y
Is the individual the main focus of the coverage? N

She is the main focus on coverage of her firing, not the event itself

Is the person notable for any other events in their life? N

Say ocean again (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Oaktree b above. Looking closer, multiple sources providing in-depth WP:SIGCOV into her specifically (1, 2). Additional sources from before #AppleToo, such as 3. In regards to WP:BLP1E, I would say she does not meet condition #3: the event in question (#AppleToo) is very significant and Parrish's role in it was both substantial and well documented. CaptainAngus (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage on her activism in the area. Hence, the firing is just one aspect of her coverage and is not a single event. The sources noted by CaptainAngus and Oaktree b are examples of significant coverage. In addition, and unrelated to her work at Apple, Parrish has received significant coverage about her experiences with health professionals when she had a miscarriage and how changes in US regulations about abortion will impact women seeking medical care in the United States, see stories here: [[7]][8]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple sources provide in-depth significant coverage of the subject, meeting WP:SIGCOV There are sources that cover her activities and significance even before the #AppleToo event. Regarding her role in the #AppleToo movement was substantial and well-documented, and the event was very significant, meaning she does not meet condition #3. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage of her activism, showing that the firing is just one aspect of her broader public presence. Additionally, she has received significant coverage for her experiences with health professionals following a miscarriage and discussions on how changes in US abortion regulations will impact women's medical care. Thus, her coverage goes beyond a single event, substantiating her notability.Master rollo (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2024 (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.