Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Brockwell

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Brockwell[edit]

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

Subject fails General Notability Guideline. "Notable" only for being a person hired by Jimmy Wales for his new commercial enterprise, "WikiTribune." Includes personal medical details that are nobody's fucking business, non-newsworthy. A letter to the editor of the Guardian (op-ed) and a sensational Daily Mail follow up (does not count towards GNG per consensus) does not cut it. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject had an article before WikiTribune was announced and launched. There are plenty more sources out there including BBC, Look and Telegraph. Andrew D. (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable, and to quote every Star Wars movie ever, "I have a bad feeling about this." →StaniStani 08:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. She's attracted some ink, but the most solid coverage is for her publicising her effort to have a tubal ligation. The coverage of both her website and her hiring by WikiTribune is shallow, and on all three topics it's interview-based. I've added some references and fixed up some that were already there, but the references were and still are heavy on her own writing, there's a Daily Mail article in there, and many of the recent news hits are the kind of emotional stuff I'm reluctant to cite. (I checked what The Memo was and it appears to be RS, so I did cite it.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, by having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Edwardx (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Her notability lies in her activism, most prominently her questioning why doctors have the right to make choices concerning women's bodies contrary to the woman's own wishes. Clearly her campaign brought nationwide discussion on the subject, as she was interviewed on television and many, many articles were published on her fight. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Her earlier campaign against Hyundai was also widely covered [7], [8] Plenty of RS cover her campaigns, but IMP she only weakly meets GNG, as I question whether "over time" is fully met, since I find little before the last five years. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to meet WP:BASIC and comes pretty close to WP:BLP1E. An activist who went public with her demand to be sterilized while still in her 20s, she published some mateirla on her decision and was interviewed in come media. Mostly sourced to small, non-notable websites, the latest claim is that she is being hired by a publication that has not yet launched, Wikitribune, which, according to the self-description quoted on our page, will operate on a wikipedia-like model, covering braking news with the public being able able to assist the paid "journalists" creating news coverage in real time. She calls herself a journalist (or whoever wrote this page does, an editor with a handful of edits who may be a fan of hers, but who certainly follows Brockwell's activities closely.) Brockwell claims to be a "journalist"; she started a website. Sourcing is pretty marginal. I wish her luck with her career, but it's just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as written is short on independent secondary sources and long on: interviews that are simply Brockwell talking about Brockwell without analysis by the interviewer, material by Brockwell, and tabloid content. However, SusunW has identified independent sources published by the BBC, CNN, News.com.au, and Tech Times, to which can be added an article in The Times (London)[9] and one in a Washington Post newsblog about another "campaign" of hers, against the app Stolen![10] These are enough to meet WP:GNG. Keep and rewrite using the identified sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete makes no claim to notability. Cheap publicity stunt (fighting national health over her sterilization request) does not create notability. --Bejnar (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a tech journalist and activist for female inclusion in tech and media, expanding on the article could be beneficial especially for the argument of making Wikipedia more open to women in the tech industry. I started this for that reason as I thought more women that have actively worked towards the inclusion of women in tech should have their pages. --Thissmileyface (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete this, when do you add it back? How many articles does she have to write for her to be notable? Does a book count? Photomonkey (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No amount of writing by a person makes that person notable. It's other people writing about a person (independently, and in reliable sources) that shows that person is notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2017 (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.