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. Disregarding the earlier confused yelling, nobody has rebutted the later NPOL argument. Sandstein 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Christine Jax (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The article is supported almost exclusively by primary sources, press releases, and other websites published by Jax's employers and other affiliated groups. There are very few reliable independent secondary sources that even mention Jax, and those that do are exclusively about a 2012 run for elected office as a member of the Palm Beach County school board. I couldn't even find a source indicating whether she won. The independent source with the most content about this individual can be found here; it's about how, during the school board election, it came to light that Jax had helped her husband publish a salacious website with images of scantily clad women. She falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

CONFLICT OF INTEREST FROM THIS EDITOR

DrFleishchman just wants to get rid of anything I've touched now bc I'm new to wiki and made the egregious faux pas of not disclosing a relationship to the subject I was editing. Now he's attempting to rollback any pages I touched because I'm apparently unreliable. I've disclosed myself officially now. The reversions DrFleischman made on this page removed the legitimate sources added months ago. The Minneapolis Star Tribute and Education Week were never affiliates of Jax nor would most people call them unreliable sources. Content from the first goes back 18 years.

RE: "The article is supported almost exclusively by primary sources, press releases, and other websites published by Jax's employers and other affiliated groups. There are very few reliable independent secondary sources that even mention Jax, and those that do are exclusively about a 2012 run for elected office as a member of the Palm Beach County school board. I couldn't even find a source indicating whether she won." She didn't win. DrFleischman removed that content and source citation to the election board. What about the Star Tribute reports about the NAACP lawsuit and the school data website? What about the grant from the Bush Foundation? Also, press releases are not inherently unreliable sources. Welcome to the new world of digital communication.

RE: "the independent source with the most content about this individual can be found here; it's about how, during the school board election, it came to light that Jax had helped her husband publish a salacious website with images of scantily clad women. She falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN." Thank you for citing the salacious story for the Palm Beach Post as your "independent source with the most content". Comment "She falls well short of a politician" is blatantly editorial and an opinion, ironically.

Her page is visited 1x per day on average. That seems like an unlikely candidate for deletion.

I request DrFleischman recuse himself from an additional involvement with my edits as everything I touch seems to be considered tainted before any attempt is made to work through improvements with me or other party editors. -- aedixon ( talk 22:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Tentative delete The nomination statement is not quite accurate, The St Mary's University Magazine article is a secondary source, not connected with the school-board election, that goes into some depth of coverage of Jax. Also, the nominator does not mention having done a WP:BEFORE search. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jax's tenure as Education Commissioner yielded additional sources that might establish her notability. But in my view the currently cited sources do not do so. (It may be that the the nominator thinks of the St Mary's University Magazine article as affiliated and therefore Primary. I think such a view is mistaken.) For the matter of that, heer previous academic carrer is very little mentioned in the article. Are there no sources with which to expand it. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Aedixon whatever the motives of DrFleischman may have been in making this nomination, the article is currently not really up to standards, and a completely uninvolved editor might hav made much the same nomination in good faith. Therefore please assume good faith if possible. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Oh and please understand, Aedixon that WP:POLITICIAN is a notability guideline page here, explaining when people will be considered notable for their political activity. The relevant text from it says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". this is actually one of the more objective of our notability guidelines. Jax pretty clearly does not meet it. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

DES, I'm a bit baffled by a couple of your comments here. First, I did conduct a WP:BEFORE search. It's odd for you to suggest that I might not have when I discussed in my nomination the sources that I managed to find and didn't manage to find. Second, the St. Mary's source is undoubtedly a secondary source, no disputing that; but it's also not an independent source since St. Mary's was Jax's employer. I think you're confusing the concepts of primary sources and non-indepeondent sources. Just because a source is non-independent doesn't mean it's a primary source. But for the notability purposes we consider only sources that are both secondary and independent. This is for good reason as St. Mary's had a financial interest in promoting its faculty, so the fact that St. Mary's did a piece on her reflects more on the univerisity's promotional capabilities than it does no Jax's off-campus notability. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Dr. Fleischman You discussed the sources that supported the article, but your only mention of searching was I couldn't even find a source indicating whether she won. I didn't say that you didn't perform a BEFORE search, I said that you didn't explicitly state what sort of search you did. On the St Mary's page, for academics in particular, since academic institutions have significant reputational investments in accuracy, official faculty directories are usually considered to be fully reliable and treated as independent. However, the St. Mary's University Magazine is, according to its masthead, written and edited by various alumni who are not University employees, as is common for university magazines. I would consider it a fully independent source, valid to help establish notability. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

We're going to have to disagree on that one. In my view, regardless of whether a magazine is written by staff or alumni, it's still affiliated with subject and therefore not independent. Alumni want to promote their alma mater, and they're going to pick stories associated with their alma mater and not stories of broader public interest. Reliability has nothing to do with it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• OF COURSE IT'S NOT UP TO STANDARDS! ALL OF THE UPDATED WERE REVERTED BACK TO THIS VERSION! THERE ARE NOW NO UNINVOLVED EDITORS EVEN POSSIBLE HERE? I CAN'T GO ASK SOMEBODY TO DO IT, THEN TEHY'RE RELATED. I. DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND. WHAT. YOU. WANT. Fleishman did not assume good faith from me. He cited template copy that alleged me a black hat SEO and I consider that disparagement of my character. aedixon 00:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedixon ( talk • contribs)

• Please don't use all-caps, Aedixon, it comes across as yelling, and that does not help such discussions. I will examine the previous version and possibly reinstate soem or all of the edits. That someone edits an article to improve it without a COI does not make that editor "involved" so that comments here are discounted. Do understand that a "paid editor" here is not the same as "a black hat SEO". If an employee of a university edits an article about one of the university faculty as part of his job, he is a paid editor and must disclose that in accord with our policy on paid editing, which I advise you to read. As long as the disclosure is made and the policy followed, there should be no problem. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• I have now reinserted much of the content that was deleted in this edit having checked all cites that were in the edit. The article is at least much closer to passing the WP:GNG now, in my view. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Thank you. aedixon ( talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• • Oh, Press Releases are not always unreliable, but they are generally not independent; therefore they can be used to support specific facts, but usually do not contribute to establishing notability. Note also that the number of views that an article has is strictly irrelevant to whether it should be deleted or kept. Many rarely viewed topics are thoroughly proper parts of the encyclopedia, while a celebrity gossip page might get hundreds or thousands of views a day, and still be quite inappropriate here. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Understood. TY. aedixon ( talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete ; do not see how this BLP meets notability. David notMD ( talk) 02:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Cabinet-level head of an executive department of a state. Clearly notable. Kablammo ( talk) 16:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have revised my view. WP:NPOL says that Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are notable. I checked the archives and it is clear that this is not limited to elected positions. Jax held the state-level position of Education Commissioner, a cabinet-level office at the state level. She therefore passes WP:NPOL regardless of the later Palm Beach election that she lost. The additional sources about her political and academic career, which are at least close to meeting the GNG on their own in my view, merely confirm her notability. I have struck my bolded view above. We should probably add content about her books and her earlier career as an educator, if good sources can be identified. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Neets NPOL per DESiegel above. Education Commissioner is a state-level gig. Not entirely primary sources. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 00:50, 6 July 2018 (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.