Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Quito

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Michig (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Quito[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Anne Quito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are all the author's own works and profile pages, with the exception of one press release. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. See WP:RESUME. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page has multiple new sources, including one that points to a second award won from an international body. We have difficulty with journalists because few people write about them, but in this case we have two awards. --Theredproject (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous comment. The awards seem readily to fulfil the WP:JOURNALIST criterion 'The person's work (or works) has ... (c) won significant critical attention'. Alarichall (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was poorly sourced when I first nominated it. It's improved a lot now. I think it's a good idea to give the contributor the benefit of the doubt for now. After looking over this more closely, I think it could be worth keeping. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a mention of the awards in the lead. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This BLP seems very PROMO to me (list of her articles?). I can't find any real WP:RS on the subject that would meet WP:GNG outside of her Quartz articles (just being a journalist for a lower tier outlet does not make you notable) and coverage in trade publications. Not a mention in the NYT? I don't see any WP:SIGCOV on her in a Tier 1 WP:RS. I can't see her meeting NAUTHOR/NJOURNALIST as she is not an "important figure"/not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"/not has "collective body of work"/not won "won significant critical attention". Her awards don't seem notable to me, and certainly not enough to swing the dial on NJOURNALIST give how weak everything else is. Struggling to see where the consensus for such a little known journalist for a lower-tier/trade publications is coming from; particularly given the strong PROMO-COI-UDP nature of this article? Britishfinance (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No wonder I could not find anything on her award, it seems that she was the winner of the first "Inaugural" 2017 Steven Heller Prize for Cultural Commentary. This award is not the a main award of the AIGA, it is just a side-award for a specific category. Britishfinance (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. The author of this article has a dormant WP account for almost a decade (with zero edits), and after re-activating it in March 2019, was inspired to write this article three days later on such a niche BLP subject in a WP:PROMO fashion? Britishfinance (talk) 01:20, 22 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Quito&oldid=888930253"