Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Elizabeth Douglas

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Elizabeth Douglas

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

BLP 1E - individual who has no notability outside of her relationship to the organization she founded Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm going to restore the removed awards and recognition section for use in this AfD as I believe they have a bearing on this conversation. I'd paste them here but the list is extensive and would be too cumbersome in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:N and WP:Bio. Has been covered by numerous reliable sources which can be found in the reference section assuming the nominator hasn't removed the awards section completely, again. Here are three example of news coverage from NBC, People Magazine, and Business Journal. Subject has also received awards from Seventeen and Covergirl (non-free article), a Sertoma for Service to Mankind, and A Jefferson Award from The American Institute for Public Service. I can keep going but I'm assuming that the nominator assumes that those awards are to the organization itself which is a reasonable mistake but not the case. Also, I think the nominator is confusing one event with one organization. I don't feel that one event applies to the works of a person an organization that span 17 years.OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user may have a conflict of interest having been asked to be the photographer of the subject of the article [[1]] Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible but I think the evidence speaks for itself. OlYeller^Talktome 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note the user has also uploaded as the author of a photo of the subject of the article's grandmother taken when her grandmother was in high school [2] indicating that the relationship with the family has been a long lasting one and not simply a single business transaction. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the evidence of notability speaks for itself and you haven't really shown how my identity has a bearing on the evidence that I have presented. OlYeller^Talktome 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of her outside of her relation to the group has not been presented. Just as WP:MUSIC a member of a notable band who has not recieved coverage for anything other than participation in the band does not meet our criteria for stand alone article, neither does Douglas. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to engage in the use of analogies when it comes to inclusion guidelines that don't specifically apply to this article but I guess I'd point you to WP:COMPOSER point one that shows that being the composer (or creator according to your analogy?), is notable. Also, please evaluate the awards. Do they not imply notability because they're not substantial? Is it because they were given to her for starting an organization? Does that mean that winning a Nobel Prize for research in one field doesn't imply notability? Also, the articles are about her (the title literally includes her name and not the organization's) for something that she has done that are not one event. OlYeller^Talktome 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. On the merits, I think the subject is notable. Enough of the coverage listed in references seems to focus on Ms. Douglas, as opposed to just the organization. It's a bit thin, the list of awards is overboard, and there are non-independent references to the organization's website (which seems to inflate the reference count). But those are problems that can be solved by editing - a paragraph noting that the subject has received awards and then listing the most notable, for example. The list is longer than the rest of the article, and that's a pretty significant problem. But it doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by OlYeller21 demonstrate that Emily Elizabeth Douglas has received nontrivial coverage in secondary reliable sources. I do not believe that BLP1E applies because being the founder of a organization is not, in my opinion, an event. That Douglas has received coverage ranging from June 2003 (titled Hometown Heroes: Honoring Grandma – the first sentence begins "Emily Douglas dearly loved her grandmother") and December 2008 (titled: Helping Kids in Appalachia: Emily Douglas, 26 to July 2010 (titled Woman Collects Supplies, Honors Grandmother For 17 Years) demonstrates that the coverage is persistent. The titles of the three articles I provided demonstrate that Douglas is the articles' main topic and not merely tangentially mentioned. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, persistant coverage of her involvement with the charity that she founded. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Emily Elizabeth Douglas' notability stems from her accomplishments with the organization she founded. That this coverage is focused mainly on her (per the article titles above) and not on her organization indicates that her notability is not dependent on coverage that her organization receives. Therefore, she is independently notable of Grandma's Gifts. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have independent coverage that stems from work with Active, but focusses on her directly VASterling (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Do we need to keep this AfD alive a little longer since there was a mistake made in the initial nomination? I feel that keeping it going for 5 to 7 days from the point that DumbBOT caught the mistake may be beneficial. OlYeller^Talktome 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not sure what "mistake" you are referring to? I STILL do not feel there is any significant coverage outside of her relationship to the charity. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you are referring to the fact that the bots didnt list it until recently on the AfD page. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just that the AfD may not have been as puclic as needed. OlYeller^Talktome 19:45, 23 September 2010 (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.