Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Waldron

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Waldron[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and the sources do not show that she meets WP:GNG and could not find sufficient sources elsewhere to prove notability. One of the sources cited is a self written article and the other is a local promo; I could find nothing about her being an ambassador for RUOK. Domdeparis (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview with her on Perth Tonight (a radio show on 6PR) where she talks about being an RUOK Ambassador https://soundcloud.com/suzanne-waldron/interview-with-perth-tonight-on-ruokday Katerg (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any reliable secondary sources? The only people that I could find mentioned as "ambassadors" are on this page People behind us]. She seems to be one of the many "community ambassadors" see her mentioned on this page which I presume is a volunteer role. The way the article is worded suggests that she is is on the same level as Hugh Jackman etc. It's a great thing to do but I don't think that being a local volunteer makes her notable enough for Wikipedia. ~~It looks rather like this WP article is really a puff piece being written as a promo aide for her activity as a motivational speaker~~ i forgot to WP:AGF my apologies... Domdeparis (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some stuff out there but not enough IRS I think. Undernotable at this time rather than nonnotable. Perhasp TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability here, RUOK ambassador is definitely not a claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No real claim to notability, and fails WP:SIGCOV. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more citations and information about her activities that make her notable. Katerg (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder if unconscious sexism is at play here. I have seen plenty of articles about men who are less/equally notable. For example, my colleague David Fono, who despite having less articles written about him and not even having a book published, was not slapped with a deletion at any point. See also http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ Katerg (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Katerg: I have rewritten the article, but I am really struggling to find reliable secondary references. Please have a look at the article, which has now been wikified. If it looked like this initially it would have been less likely to attract negative attention. I cannot comment on any unconscious sexism, but I can state that Wikipedia inherently suffers from systemic bias, that is, because the notability and verifiability policies rely on secondary references it relies on what other people have researched and written about a subject, and yes there is bias in the world, which then flows through to wikipedia. Can you find any more secondary references, to allow more depth and scope to the article. Yes, as it stands David Fono may well be deleted. I have not looked further at it. I also refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and conversely WP:NEXIST. I would like to keep this article, but it is very difficult to find material to make the case. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoziwe! Katerg (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Katerg: I totally refute any accusations of sexism conscious or unconscious. Your suggestion that this deletion nomination is motivated by sexism comes under Accusing others of bad faith you might want to read what the guidelines say about that and also read this No personal attacks. It is very easy to accuse editors of being sexist rather than trying to write articles that are acceptable and find sources that prove that the subject is notable. If you need help understanding what has to be done read the GNG it states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If you are claiming that the subject of the article is notable as a speaker or a coach or an author you have to find sources that back this up. She sounds like a worthy person who is out there doing her job and helping people, but there are literally billions of people doing the same thing but they do not all merit a page in Wikipedia that is what social media is for. If she wants to tell her story, she can use facebook, twitter, blogs and books, they are all there for that, but here we are talking about notable subjects as per the WP definition. You admit having created a page about one of your colleagues, this is considered as WP:COI editing and you should have really made a disclosure about your relationship. I totally agree with you the subject does not seem at all notable and his page does not have its place on Wikipedia. I will nominate that article for deletion as well not because he is a man or a woman but just because the subject is not notable. If you want to close the gender gap (which I do not deny at all) I would suggest writing articles about notable subjects, there are just as many notable women as men out there, but writing about a non notable woman and accusing everyone of being sexist if they question the notability is not helping the cause at all. Domdeparis (talk) 11:08, 23 January 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.