- 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. I've read over this AfD a few times, and I realize its contentious and likely the subject of an ArbCom case, so I'll explain my reasoning here as best I can:
Despite this being a very long discussion, the consensus is actually pretty clear. Several of the comments advocating keeping the article had no basis in our policies and guidelines. Others, which attempted to appeal to policies and guidelines did so relatively weakly: references to employer profiles can be used in theory to meet
WP:NPROF criteria such as being a named chair, but no one is really arguing that here, and there is a consensus that she does not meet it. Employer profiles generally are not accepted as evidence for meeting the GNG. Google Scholar is similar: simple listing in its hits is usually not enough to qualify as an RS, even for the purposes of PROF.
The argument on being on the research team seems to come from PROF1. Unfortunately, it requires significant coverage in
independent sources, which have not been produced here.
Then there is the argument from
WP:BIO, somehow claiming that the introductory paragraph that tries to explain to new editors the concept of notability exempts living persons from the requirements of the GNG. Nothing could be further from the truth: in practice, our sourcing standards for BLP notability are some of the highest on the project, and even if we go off of the text of
WP:BIO itself, it demonstrates that argument not to be the case:
WP:BASIC is just a regurgitation of the GNG and is the first guideline mentioned in the actual body of that SNG.
Finally, having gone through the most prominent keep arguments, the delete arguments simply were the strongest: there exists virtually no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The main claim here outside of the local YWCA article is a featured employee profile by her employer. As was pointed out and achieved consensus amongst the voters who addressed it, this is not independent coverage in secondary sourcing.
On the whole, the arguments for deletion were significantly stronger than the arguments to keep, and when combined with the numerical consensus, I think the outcome here is fairly clear, so I am closing it as delete.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
07:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
