Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Griswold (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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Griswold

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

Fails WP:BIO, article written by the company's digital marketing director is based on articles about her company in which she is mentioned, but lacks depth of coverage. Article previously deleted, was recently re-created, then speedily deleted but restored. While it may be different, same problems remain. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: Hi! So I see that this article was deleted again because there is not enough proof that Jean Griswold is noteworthy, which is becoming rather frustrating. Would mention of this book, in which she was featured, help the depth of coverage that you mentioned? How much more supportive information is needed to improve the depth of coverage? Martin, Katherine (October 10, 2001). Women of Spirit: Stories of Courage from the Women Who Lived Them. New World Library. ISBN 978-1577311492

Jarodkarns (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)— Jarodkarns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR etc —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. This person isn't going to be notable, no matter how many times it gets recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Alright. Why is Jean not notable? She gained national attention after being featured in Inc., Forbes, Entrepreneur, and on NBC's Today. She has won numerous awards, including Working Woman's 2001 Entrepreneur of the Year honor. She is confined to a wheelchair after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1969. Her story was published in the 2001 book Women of Spirit, edited by Katherine Martin. Please help me understand why somebody that went through so much, but still managed to create her own company, win awards and be featured in so many publications is not notable?. Jarodkarns (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)— Jarodkarns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Probable~~ Keep Sources do seem to exist to document her as an entrepreneur of considerable accomplishment. Article may simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Have added sources documenting that she is the founder of a large, successful company; that it is the oldest company of its kind in the U.S.; and also a 1992 profile of her from the Philadelphia Inquirer. @Coretheapple:, @Joseph2302:, @Wikimandia:, you may want to take a fresh look. There have been an impresive # of Jean Griswolds in the world, and coverage of this one often dates back over 20 yrs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, afraid we still don't have sufficient significant coverage to support this person's inclusion in the project. Articles such as this do not count as significant coverage. We also have the fact that this article is written by the company's digital marketing director, per disclosure, and we should not have such articles in Wikipedia. It's unfair to our readers and to other corporate executives lacking such an aggressive Wikipedia-focused marketing campaign. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Also, as discussed at length in the hatted discussion below, the claim that it is "the oldest company of its kind in the U.S." is sourced to the company and thus needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion of one source

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Also I notice that you are using a press release to source a sweeping statement concerning the notability of the subject's company, that it is "the nation's oldest non-medical home care provider," per your edit here. That "McClatchy" article is clearly a republished press release that ran on the PR Web. The fact that it was carried on ProQuest is immaterial and does not anoint it with RS status. When a publication recyclces a press release, it is still a press release, and we don't use self-published press releases to source such sweeping statements. I haven't gone through the other sources you are talking up here, but I hope there isn't other questionable material at issue in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coretheapple, Untrue. The article is not a "a republished press release". As I stated on the talk page, Proquest is an archive. It does list press releases. But it flags them in the search as PR for Press RElease, so you easily scroll past them to find articles form real newspapers. The article in question is not a replica of the company press release, although it was apparently inspired by the press release. It is form a The McClatchy Company newspaper, the Tribune Business News and it is about how the national rebranding will affect a local franchise of Griswold Home Care. Proquest is an entirely RS since it takes you to the actual article in actual papers. Please cease your edit warring and undue ownership behavior.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The McClatchy "article" is a fifteen-day-old recycled, localized press releaseavailable on the web here that ran on the PR Wire[1], as a comparison of the two indicates. The fact that you summoned up that article from ProQuest adds no value to it and means nothing. The important point is that the claim that the subject of this article is CEO of "the nation's oldest non-medical home care provider" is a claim made by the company and is therefore of only limited credibility and usefulness. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a corporate press release is not sufficient to support that kind of claim. It is currently attributed to the company (unless in your zeal to "rescue" this article, you took that out). If this article survives, it will need to be removed, as it is not properly attributed. There is little point in removing such press agentry from an article, written by the company's digital marketing guy, that is under consideration for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment on COI, sources, and notability I had not known that the article was COI, although, of course, many/most? articles about individuals and companies are. Authorship is not the issue addressed at AFD. The question is whether Griswold's notability is substantive and well-sourced. She has been profiled in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite Coretheapple's aggressive denialism, and despite the fact taht claims of this source are inherently difficult to prove (define "home care",) a The McClatchy Company news article claims that her company is the oldest of its kind. And she is the recipient of numerous awards for being founder of a large, successful corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rewritten corporate press release (this is its origin on the PRWeb news release wire) is what you inaccurately describe as an "article." The web version is identical to the ProQuest version. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you are claiming to be a "McClatchy article" is a press release. It is word-for-word identical to the same press release, which was published in a different publication. So I stand corrected. It is not a "rewritten PRWeb press release." It is a press release. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted both the link to the open access press release, and a full cut-and-paste of the news article which souces the "oldest" claim (it is an article about the local franchise, not a copy of the press release) on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an article about the local franchise. For the umpteenth time, it is a press release about the local franchise. We know that because the same text, with the same headline, ran in two separately owned publications. Apart from that, they both read like press releases, and are in the format of a press release. I pasted the same press release that you took from ProQuest, and the same press release that was put on the web by a different publication. They are both the same identically worded press release. Any editor with ProQuest acccess, and there are hundreds of us, can confirm this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this to the talk page, where it belongs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance to this AfD is this: the claim that you added to the article that Ms. Griswold is CEO of "the nation's oldest non-medical home care provider" is a claim made by the company. Period. You are, rather tendentiously, continuing to claim otherwise, but it is obvious that this claim is made by the company in a PRWeb press release, a shorter press release that ran in at least two publications, and nowhere else. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, not press releases. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone still interested, go to talk. However, even if this article turns out to be a press release, it is a minor point compared with the fact that Griswold founded a large, successful corporation; has received many awards covered in the press; was profiled in both Forbes and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Sometimes editors who spot an inadequate article become emotionally attached to their AFD nomination even after better sources are located and the article improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple:@E.M.Gregory: I'm just trying to aid in this discussion. There was a request earlier here to provide sources for Jean Griswold being featured in some of the notable magazines. Here is a link to the Forbes article from December 24, 1990. Here is a link to the Inc article from JUN 1, 1989. Here is a link to the Church that Jean's husband Lincoln was minister at (he is mentioned in the history section of their site). Here are two more articles from Paraplegia News about Jean Griswold and what she has been able to do after being diagnosed with MS - Article 1 and Article 2. Still working on some of the other publications, but since I was asked not to edit the page, I am providing sources here so that others may do so. Jarodkarns (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may I add that as far as I am concerned, mention of Griswold Home Care as a company or information about the business as it relates today, does not even need to be included in this article on Jean Griswold. We should be focused on the fact that this woman started her own company in the 1980's while fighting MS. With so much against her (being a female CEO and fighting a debilitating disease), she was able to help a lot of people that needed care, provide jobs, advocate for MS, and at the same time create a successful business. It's really a remarkable story. And again, although my COI is in play here (which I've declared), I am more than happy to take a sidelines approach as long as this discussion is handled appropriately. There shouldn't be much of an argument about whether Jean Griswold is notable or not as long as contributors are able to verify the sources. — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is an article on the founder, who has not received sufficient coverage to support notability, a situation that lamentably existed in the original article as well, the first one deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a large, successful corporation is an excellent claim to WP notability, especially when it is backed up - as it is in this case - by a 1990 profile in Forbes, a 1992 profile in Philadelphia Inquirer, many shorter accolades in Inc. (magazine) and elsewhere as documented in article (which by no means includes all of the press she's drawn) and by examples brought here by User:Jarodkarns but (not yet edited in to the article); and by the many prizes given her by sundry notable outfits, some sourced in article. There is more than enough here to pass WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, in spite of the fuss and of the wikilawyering above, this is just a vanity page, promotional, badly sourced with tons of primary sources and trivial mentions, and failing GNG. Spirit of Philadelphia Award and Working Woman's Entrepreneur of the Year are non-notable awards, then absolutely inadequate for a claim of notability per WP:ANYBIO. Griswold appears to be someone worthy of respect, but currently unsuitable for having an article in an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 04:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears to me that a large number of sources (both in the various searches and on-page, but ignoring the subscription-requiring ones) mostly talk about her company (which doesn't appear to have an article) rather than herself. An article about the company might meet WP:GNG and WP:GROUP thusly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a chapter in a book and a profile/feature article about Griswold from Entrepreneur (magazine) 1991 to the feature/profile stories from Forbes 1990 a and Philadelphia Inquirer 1992 already on the page. Also added two long profile, feature stories on Griswold from PNMagazine (formerly Paraplegia News)[2] dated to 1991, and 2003. So there are 3 or 5 full profile/feature articles from major magazines, plus extensive news coverage of her in relationship to the company she founded. Plus discussions of her life and career in books. I fail to understand the argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions./>E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. Griswold is the founder of Griswold Home Care. Article has been cleaned up, sourced, hype provided by misguided SPA/COI removed, making almost all of the above comments including Nom and previous AFD out of date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think sufficient sources have been added to prove notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know nothing of Griswold Home Care, but if it is operating on the scale alleged, it is clearly notable, and its founder too. The fact that this article started with a COI-editor is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 11 June 2015 (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.