Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Kianni

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Kianni[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)

environmentalist. Lots of citebombing in the article, but nothing above trivial name dropping. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.thelily.com/meet-the-17-year-old-climate-activist-who-skipped-school-to-hunger-strike-at-the-capitol/ is a long indepth article from a reliable source about her. https://grow.acorns.com/financial-lessons-for-high-school-students/ is less so, but still a non-trivial piece about her. That, plus the "citebombing" - which is from CNN, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, The Guardian, Reuters - basically the most respected sources we have - is easily enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Also she writes, her long, non-trivial articles have been published in Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Yahoo News, and now MTV News, a publishing history many writers twice her age would be happy to have. But that's just icing. --GRuban (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that notability is what people write about the subject, not what the subject writes about. Unless the writing is somehow notable (award winning, studied academically, etc.) it's doesn't count. Ifnord (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, struck the icing. --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are reliable, notability asserted. maybe needs some editing but the subject is notable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poer the well reasoned arguments of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also per nom. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is well sourced bio using reputable articles. Looking through the category for other youth environmental activist, this subject is of similar stature. A simple google search shows that the subject is featured in numerous high quality sources and has her biography on academic websites. In addition to The Lily and CNBC listed above, this Washington Post article has a significant portion dedicated to her at the top and bottom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teen-climate-activists-coronavirus-strike/2020/04/10/521a0e5a-7448-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html. This article almost entirely features her: https://digiday.com/marketing/extinction-rebellion-using-social-media-marketing-grow-movement/ and this CNN article also has a significant chunk dedicated to her speaking about social media trends (which makes sense bc she is a climate activist focusing on media strategy): https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/19/us/tiktok-coronavirus-quarantine-dance-trnd/index.html. Notability is clearly asserted sans cite bombing.

dscotty26 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Wikipedia biography exists in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies on notability and sources. The aforementioned sources are of high quality, independent of one another, and the piece is written with an informative tone. The subject of the article is notable as well. A quick internet search will yield a considerable array of independent, reliable sources, all of which exclusively discuss the subject in detail. She has been featured in the Washington Post three times now, and occupies high-profile positions across a range of prominent international organizations in this field, serving as National Strategist at Fridays for Future, and carrying out functions as International Spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion. These are both very notable organizations with a high degree of international presence on their own. Furthermore, as mentioned, this article is inline with other entries in the category. The subject is notable, and there is a wide array of independent, prominent and reliable sources online to justify this. Therefore, I see no reason for deletion. This is a well-written article.

Rmirmotahari (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dps04 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears notable, but a bit unconventional -- full profile in Forbes plus the rest of the citations, suggest notable individual -- might need a bit of triming in the process. Sadads (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been refbombed to a degree, and it definitely needs a lot of trimming (especially in the activism section) but there is clearly quite a bit of significant coverage in the references provided, causing her to pass GNG easily. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Lily is a sister publication of the Washington Post, thus articles about her in both those publications essentially count as one. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First, disagree: "sister publication" is not a well defined term. Between 1993 and 2013, The Boston Globe was owned by The New York Times, would you argue they would similarly "essentially count as one"? I am afraid they are different papers, with a different staff, audiences, and standards. Still reputable Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but different. Second, however, to be honest, The Washington Post is one of the most respected newspapers in the world, so if you want to say that the long, in-depth Lily article focusing on her might actually be "essentially" in the Washington Post, well, that would be a strong argument that she meets WP:GNG right there. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, literally the Wikipedia article is The Lily (Washington Post). It is published by the WashPost [1]. The Boston Globe NYT comparison is not applicable here. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. Please free to consider it a 30 paragraph The Washington Post article about her in your consideration of her notability. So one large article by The Washington Post, a medium one from Acorns, plus shorter bits by CNN, Time Magazine, The Guardian, Reuters ... and again The Washington Post ... that don't go as in depth, but don't just drop her name as part of a list of dozens either, multiple mentions or whole paragraphs about her. I'm going to say that meets WP:GNG, no? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not arguing for deletion, frankly I don't have an opinion on this article. Yes, a WashPost/Lily feature would certainly contribute towards notability, all I'm pointing out is that the two publications should be for notability purposes be considered the same. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I came here on a weird path, but subject appears to meet the GNG and there are a lot of page views. Abductive (reasoning) 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I believe she meets the notability criteria, having been featured in-depth here, here, and here. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:06, 27 May 2020 (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.