Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne N. Smith

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) GSS (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne N. Smith

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

WP:BLP of the executive director of a non-profit agency, which is written like a cross between a résumé and a high school "my personal hero" essay rather than like an encyclopedia article. The referencing, further, is parked far too strongly on primary sources, with only a very few pieces of actual reliable source coverage scattered among the weeds. This is simply not good enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article full of NPOV problems, combined with very weak sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Articles should not be deleted on quality grounds. There are sufficient sources to support notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nothing essay-like (now I've removed the many occurrences of her given name and a couple of words here and there). Appears to be a notable woman, recognised and quoted in many sources. PamD 10:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably a close call either way. The Yes magazine piece on her is great; but too many of the other news sources, esp. The Nation and WaPo, are mere mentions, including around her being invited to White House function. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Also, remember folks, "quality" is not grounds for nomination for deletion. Always improve first. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG with the non-primary references in the article. In addition, her work is reviewed in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research and ~~Feminist Press~~ (which are unfortunately behind a paywall for me). Her work is also described in a paragraph in The Washington Post and more significantly in The New York Times. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reliable sources, meets GNG. Article needs some improvement,but notability established. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:06, 19 June 2016 (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.