Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Cleaver

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. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Cleaver

[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)

~~I don’t see the in-depth coverage in RIS to support a stand alone biography of this subject. A redirect to Vote.org would be a possible ATD. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nomination as there is clearly a consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Not seeing it either. Agree with the redirect if others do.~~
Weak Keep or Merge: Changing my iVote: Sufficient sourcing for a GNG pass has now been added to the article by Sdkb, but still have possible TOOSOON concerns. The first two sources listed, however, are rated questionable on Cite Unseen, but the others will suffice for our purposes here. Just have to watch the NPOV compliance on this one. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:BEFORE really should not have been hard for this one, so it's disappointing to see the nomination not even attempt to address the article's present sources. Laying them out, the three contributing to notability are:

Thorpe, JR (7 March 2017). "Debra Cleaver, Founder Of Vote.org, Is Making Women's History Now". Bustle. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Hatmaker, Taylor (13 May 2020). "Vote.org founder launches VoteAmerica, a nonprofit using tech tools to help Americans vote by mail". TechCrunch. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Schleifer, Theodore (28 April 2020). "One of America's key voting rights groups plunged into chaos when it was needed most". Vox. Retrieved 11 March 2021.

The first two are profiles of Cleaver, which is quintessential SIGCOV, and the Bustle piece in particular is quite in-depth (roughly 2000 words). Both Bustle and TechCrunch are mainstream American publications, and while neither are stellar on the reliability front (they're both no consensus at RSP), these particular articles appear to be reported profiles, not churnalism, so I do not see any issue using them. The Vox piece isn't structured as a profile specifically of Cleaver, but she is the central character, and it mentions her 48 times. I'm not sure whether the nominator doesn't consider 48 mentions enough for SIGCOV or doesn't think Vox is reliable (it's RSP-greenlit), but either way I strongly disagree. As ever, I remind editors that an article being short doesn't make it non-notable, and I suggest the nominator withdraw. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was indeed the shortness of the article that originally drew my attention, and I thought I’d try to expand it. The first thing I found was that apart from the existing sources, I couldn’t find any others. That took me back to the existing sources. My view is that they are not in depth coverage of the subject at all. Bustle is an extended interview with her, not independent coverage of her, and it isn’t about her, it’s about vote.org. The TechCrunch piece also quotes her extensively, but likewise isn’t about her, it’s about the organisation she founded. The Vox article seems the most in depth coverage of her and the least reliant on interviews with her or comment from her. But ultimately it too is mainly about the organisations she has founded rather than about her. So out of all of this, the article as it stands is hardly capable of expansion. All we can say about the subject, based on these sources, is that she founded vote.org and then went off and founded vote.America.org. My conclusion is if that’s all we can say about her for the moment, she does not warrant a stand alone bio. Everything to be said about Debra Cleaver is already included in the vote.org article and this stub adds nothing. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good profiles are built around an interview with the source, but it's a reported profile with plenty of information stated in the journalist's rather than Cleaver's voice, not a Q+A. And it would be a very bad profile if in 2000 words it said nothing about her beyond her work with Vote.org. But luckily there's a whole bunch in there to mine about her early life and more; I'll add it later, and this should be no problem at all to get to DYK length. At that point, it would be undue to try to merge it into the Vote.org article, thus justifying a standalone page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: I've just expanded the article's prose size by 12 times. A portion of it focuses on her work at Vote.org, as would be expected given that it's the biggest part of her career, but plenty of other elements do not, and especially now that she's left Vote.org I would expect that aspect to become more pronounced going forward. I hope that editing is sufficient to demonstrate that the article was indeed capable of expansion. If you'd be willing to withdraw now, I would appreciate it, as that will clear the way for a DYK nomination before the time limit expires. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t want to be argumentative and maybe there’s something here that I’m just not getting, but I’m afraid I’m still not seeing a clear notability pass here. The sourcing isn’t strong, and the detail recently added looks like the kind of stretch you find in promotional articles. The rest is still more about the organisations the subject founded than about her. So I’m happy to be proved wrong if consensus says this subject is notable, but I’d prefer to wait for that result as I’m not convinced at this point that a withdrawal is the right course of action. Mccapra (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:BASIC, and because a redirect and/or merge does not seem workable, because 1) she is no longer at Vote.org, 2) her current work at VoteAmerica has been covered by e.g. The New York Times (2020) with a focus on her; and her career overall, in addition to the sources that were in the article, has also been profiled by Fast Company (2020), and 3) she also has WP:BASIC notability generally as an expert commentator on elections issues, and I have added state-level and national sources to the article that range from 2018 through 2021, including The New York Times (2018), Washington Journal/C-SPAN (2018), Insider (2020), various state news (November 2020) 1, 2, 3, and CBS News (2021). Beccaynr (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like we have enough reliable coverage of this person to write a decent bio on them. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (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.