Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbie Hutty

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. Per late provided evidence of GNG compliance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie Hutty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Appears to be a promotional article about an ordinary engineer, failing GNG. I caught this in the backlog of the New Article queue, don't have strong feelings here but thought it best to kick this out for community input on the notability question. Carrite (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The awards mean that she passes WP:ANYBIO and the casual nature of the nomination is contrary to WP:BITE and WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which award do you find compelling? Carrite (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Delete This one is more on the line. Her work on the rover is notable, but she may have not led that design. Receiving awards in engineering practice from local or regional organizations is not uncommon including engineer of the year. What differentiates this article? Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has over 100K members in over 100 countries. It has a long and illustrious history and so being its youngest ever Fellow is not a minor, local/regional accolade. Andrew D. (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your point as a national award. The Institute is primarily positioned for members in the United Kingdom. There are hundreds of professional associations, however, I don't think that alone is notable. Otherwise we would be creating articles for the young medical doctor, brewer, real estate agent of the year articles for every xyz professional association for every country for groups that are much larger and equally as 'illustrious'. The youngest fellow award may be notable and the fact that she worked for ESA. Beyond this I'm not sure we would create articles for every xyz of the year award that's not very well known to the general public. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randomeditor1000 created the article Stomper the Maverick who doesn't seem to have won any kind of award from any organisation. He should please explain why the subject in question is less notable. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, do Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) need to have won awards to be WP:Notable? I'm confused by your question. But I would generally agree that caricature is a local/regional subject that may not be notable. I don't think that discussion has weight with regards to this article. After looking at news articles she seems to be a role model being referenced by the Guardian and the Telegraph. I'm still somewhat conflicted on this one though. In my field I work with civil engineers who are similarly positioned in my locale but are not on WP. I have revised my opinion, but I think I will leave this left for more consensus. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm fine with a fast finish here with a withdrawn nomination if you can show me how this nomination is off base because I missed something obvious: a few independently-published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject or a major award that gets the subject through a SNG or what have you... But leaping in with a recommendation of a "Speedy Keep," accusing me of biting newcomers (!!1), and then not making an orderly defense but leaping to a specious OTHERSTUFF argument involving a fictional character isn't gonna impress anyone, least of all me. I saw a fairly spammy-looking piece in the 5 day old section of the New Articles queue and brought it here rather than marking it Approved or ignoring it... Yeah, there's a lot of Google hits for the subject, yeah, the subject has worked on an important engineering project that has garnered news coverage. Less noise and more substance, please. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: I've done some spring-cleaning on the article, including more sources such a mention in The Guardian and adding citations on all unsourced content per WP:BLPSOURCES. Does it look any better now? It's a shame the first couple of editors couldn't have done this instead of accusing you of bad faith and throwing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS excuses at you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sources nor the awards show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable - not just for the awards, but also media coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coordinator of all of the specialists working on the ExoMars rover structure is notable, then there's all the media coverage (this level of public engagement work seems to fulfil criteria 7 of WP:Notability (academics), and the awards seem to satisfy criteria 2) - seems as notable to me as other engineers such as George Henry Challenger, Ovadia Harari, Frank Irving or Arthur Davenport (engineer) (none of whom have been AfD'd). Zeromonk (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Election to a body like the ICE is one of the hallmarks of NOTE. In this case, the fact that she's also had the record setting election makes it more the case. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maury Markowitz and above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many, many, many suitable news sources that can be used. I've added a bunch to the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ritchie. Meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 18 October 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.