Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Adamson

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) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Adamson[edit]

[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)

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, a well written promotional content to promote a founder. Meeanaya (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see why Wikipedia should take a step back and start deleting biographies of women, who are less than 20% of its biographical content. This woman's award section indicates she is a notable businessperson. Sorry I don't remember for the life of me why I created this as a stub 10 years ago, but it was not for promotional purposes. Bill Moyers is certainly a reliable source. I also find Slate, Psychology Today, and NPR. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So on Slate, she has written one article, psychologytoday.com link is a blog, NPR links seems to be clearly a rountine coverage and billmoyers.com is not enough to establish her notability independently. If you can find more links after reviewing WP:RS, please do share here. Meeanaya (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of telling me to review the rules, you could review them yourself. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We should keep it because Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles about women" is the biggest logical fallacy in the AfD. If the subject does not have adequate sourcing or general notability it gets deleted. Trillfendi (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should not keep any pages only because that they are for a particular gender. Meeanaya (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. That said, we have lots and lots and lots of such articles. However the solution is not to keep articles on people who are clearly not notable, it is for people to step up and nominate more articles for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough meat here for notability. Better to add a notability tag then hard delete if you are concerned and see what comes up.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patapsco913, can you please share a few links for her, which you believe are in-depth and covering her contributions and are not just routine coverage? Meeanaya (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple. Smith college has even collected her papers for future reference.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ablow, Gail (May 16, 2017). "Making Change: Rebecca Adamson". Bill Moyers Journal.
Johansen, Bruce Elliott (June 22, 2010). Native Americans Today: A Biographical Dictionary. Greenwood. - there are further references at the end of the entry on Adamson as well
Toensing, Gale Courey (March 13, 2015). "Rebecca Adamson Has a Plan for Empowering Indigenous Peoples". Indian Country Today.
- The way I see this bio is that she is not a one-hit wonder. She founded at least one major Native American organization. Her whole life has been dedicated to a slew of varied pro-Native American and indigenous activities (which is all sourced). Smith college is collecting her papers so she must have some credibility. Her whole life is her notability. When she dies, I would expect that there will be a nice all encompassing obituary. The article definitely needs cleanup but not to be deleted.19:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Snowball Keep Besides any of the above (including the "routine" NPR page, whcih one presumably only gets if one is notable enough for NPR) a quick gsearch gives me things like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] after which it didn't seem for the purposes of AfD, worth searching any more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequately sourced for general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like there are enough substantial independent RS. I do understand how difficult it can be to assess this, especially before an AfD so no trouts are in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Between the article and the links provided above, the sourcing is adequate to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - looks like a case of a lack of a WP:BEFORE search. A lack of female bios doesn't give anyone a free ride, but just checking the actual notability of a subject before nominating is also a good habit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep The Bill Moyers article alone contains enough well-sourced material to establish notability. I am also disturbed by the cookiecutter inappropriate nomination "Not independently notable outside of her company" (what company?) previously used to flag bio of another clearly notable woman (Jan Brandt) for AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2019 (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.