Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adena Jacobs

Nowadays, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adena Jacobs is a topic that has gained great relevance in today's society. For a long time, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adena Jacobs has been the subject of debate and research, arousing the interest of academics, specialists and people in general. This article aims to delve into the different aspects of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adena Jacobs, analyzing its impact on different aspects of daily life. Through an exhaustive analysis, we seek to provide the reader with detailed and updated information about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adena Jacobs, in order to promote a more complete and enriching understanding of this phenomenon.
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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

NN individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 15:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added a couple of references, by no means exhaustive. Don't know how nominator could have googled her and thought the results trivial. For example, she's been profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Saturday Paper, which alone is more than enough for WP:GNG. I'd argue she passes WP:CREATIVE too based on her works although they aren't really referenced in the article (but are reviewed all over the place in independent, credible Australian sources). Boneymau (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
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.