Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi O'Donnell-Ames

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi O'Donnell-Ames

[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)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. Article contains sources that are primary, unreliable, mention the subject briefly and no wide coverage. Google search of her does not show in-depth significant coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This runs afould of the guidlines that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search reveals nine pages of articles and discussion about O'Donnell-Ames and her work. The article has no intention of serving a function like that of LinkedIn—the accomplishment of being the first person in the U.S. to establish a non-profit for the children of ALS patients is significant, and no work opportunities are being sought out. Her work is referenced in the article Hope Loves Company. Perhaps this article (or portions of it) can be merged into Hope Loves Company, but this page does contain notable, reliable articles about accomplishments significant enough to warrant its own space, as well as enough notable sources and proof of accolades to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. User:Newjersey20 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the above editor is the creator of the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment the above editor is the nominator of the AfD for this article. That's about how much relevance that statement makes. Argue policy not prejudice.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: there's simply nothing here that would pass WP:ANYBIO. I was initially going to suggest redirecting to Hope Loves Company, but having taken a look at that page, I've started an AfD discussion for it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is an author who has written published works. An advocate for those suffering with ALS. She has been the topic of many primary and secondary reliable sources including newspapers and other media outlets. She has won awards for her contributions to the ALS community. A simple Google search reveals just how impactful she has been on a segment of our world population suffering from this terrible disease. She soars above the line called WP:GNG.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment difficult to lend any support whatsoever to keeping this article. It has the prototypical qualities of wikipedia-as-venue-for-PR-fluff, such as the throw-away single-purpose account making just exactly enough edits to lauch a perfectly formed article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Newjersey20 - and the PR photo claimed as "own work" by the article author - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jodi_O%27Donnell-Ames_2020.jpg (which is either an indicator of COI, or a lie, or both) - and the hyper-detailed hagiographic narrative knit from sparse PR fluff sources. Google isn't exactly falling over itself to disgorge reliable sources meeting GNG. Google news has a few pages of miserable PR fluff. My view is that the best interests of wikipedia will be met by deleting articles such as this. We owe no favours to sub-border-line-notable individuals who seek to use wikipedia for their ends, rather than contributing to wikipedia for its ends. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love ya Tagishsimon but we disagree here. This is a woman who is influential within a very specific community and on a very important topic. What you stated in your comment is an opinion. Opinions should be shared but they do not supersede policy. I have shared my opinion on many occasions here. The most compelling are when it links with policy. Does she meet the requirements of WP:GNG? Yes! The picture provided is another thing entirely. It could be that it is incorrectly tagged or it might be a copyright issue. That does not keep her from being notable. On principle and policy she passes, opinions on the style of wording in the article only apply if you can prove it is written with a distinct bias or if you can prove there is a COI. Outside of proof, the claims made are no more relevant than me saying the moon is made of cheese. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per WP:SIGCOV based on multiple sources. A merge to Hope Loves Company is another possibility. I trimmed and reformatted the article to remove WP:PROMO. TJMSmith (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this person's work is quite admirable, there are two problems: notability and COI. The sourcing is weak: 1. local college newsletter (trivial); 2. Primary (interview); 3. local Fox channel human interest story; 4. primary (interview) on Authority Magazine's website it states "Where to send a pitch" and..."Are you an expert in your field who has information to share with the public? Authority Mag has a paid program called "Thought Leader Incubator" in other words this seems like pay-to-play; 5. People Mag: OK; 6. Mercer Me: self-disclosed "hyper-local news outlet" (trivial); 7. & 8. Alumni award and newsletter (trivial). That just leaves Fox and People (not the most reliable sources IMO, but they pass). Does not meet WP:GNG at this time. Re: COI...it has all the marks of a PR firm's creation: promotional tone (now tempered); padding references with trivia and primary sources; WP:SPA editor (with 41 total edits) has created two articles...this one and the one for her company both perfectly formed; the smoking gun is the studio-shot PR photo by the article creator, who by the way also claims that her company's logo is their "own work" on O'Donnell-Ames' Hope Loves Company article. Quite a bit of evidence this is UPE/COI. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Note: You denied to mention the two published and independently reviewed books she authored. That has to be taken into account as reliable sources of notability. Getting a book through the publishing process with an independent publisher, let alone two, is an accomplishment that speaks to notability.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any book reviews. She definitely does not pass WP:NAUTHOR, which is why I did not mention it above. She has written two books published by 1. Open Door Publishing - from their website: "Coaching: $150 per one-hour session or $400 for three one-hour sessions." and "In addition we offer consulting services, at $100 per hour, for do-it-yourself author who just needs a little advice on the intricacies of publishing." 2. The other book publisher is "People Tested Media" the motto on their website is "Our Readers are not Dummies!" and "We’re not a self publishing mill! We don’t provide publishing consulting services! You won’t end up with a garage full of books or the need to view a lot of self help videos that actually take time away from your ability to tell your tale!" This does not instill a lot of confidence in the presses. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post links here to the "independent book reviews" that you have refered to above? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: That's a facepalm for me, borderline double facepalm. Jodi O'Donnell, not to be confused with the subject, is a well known and reviewed author writing over 13 books and literary pieces. The names can get confusing. I still think she passes notability within the ALS community and receives significant enough coverage in multiple sources to back this claim up. SO I stick to my original statement. Accusations of COI/paid contributions/PR stunts should be only considered as irrelevant opinion until proof is found and does this woman a huge disservice for the work she has and continues to accomplish.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since everyone wants to throw around their "supposed" expert opinion as fact, has anyone asked the editor if they are a paid contributor? I mean, are we just going to consider the "good faith" only applies when it's in our personal favor or goes along with our own personal opinions?--Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Since my fellow Wikipedians are so afraid to do any research to back of their claims here I wanted to inform you all that I have asked the creator if they have any affiliation with Jodi O'Donnell-Ames or Hope Loves Company on the user talk page. Subject to the answers, I will ask about the pictures on Wikimedia Commons. This is the type of investigative work that should be thoroughly checked prior to making assertions that are unsupported by verifiable proof.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to any potential closer of this AfD. I ask that seven additional days be allowed, after whatever decision is made, for the original creator of the article to answer my requests for comment on their talk page. I will endeavor to determine whether this person is a paid contributor or there is a COI issue regarding this article. IF that is the case then I move to have the article on Jodi and the article on the organization be draftified and allow myself and other editors to bring it to a place where it can be merged into one article for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The organization is most assuredly notable and there is precedent for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory in which the argument was made that the organization didn't deserve to be included because they are "a bunch of fakes". That is not reason enough for exclusion. Neither is the argument that this is a COI PR stunt article based on opinion. Few verifiable sources were provided but it was enough in that case. Likewise there are enough verifiable sources to conclude that Jodi and/or the organization she founded is notable and worth inclusion in the encyclopedia. I will make the same request on the AfD for the organization.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 16:10, 14 October 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.