Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie E. Clark

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. L Faraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie E. Clark[edit]

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

After removing the overwhelmingly primary-source (including publications by associates) and self-publication laden portions of this BLP, I've concluded the subject is not the actual subject of substantial coverage by unrelated reliable sources. Note, she's a HuffPo blogger, so HuffPo pieces about this living person should be considered associated and/or primary. She does get mention, but it's mostly her acting as a spokesperson within coverage of her group, coverage of a WP:1E (cf. WP:BLP1E), or coverage of sexual harassment and assaults on school campuses. She's in coverage, but it's just not coverage of Annie. JFHJr (㊟) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't ever tell if you are a woman-hater or not. Of course this woman is covered mostly in relation to the other people she is involved with -- she's a joint filer of a precedent-setting civil rights complaint. That doesn't mean she's an less notable than individuals who were, for example, involved in joint efforts to coordinate the Freedom Rides. And just because she was eventually hired by the Huffington Post as a blogger (because she is a talented writer) doesn't mean coverage prior to her hiring, penned by one of the news agency's editors, is dismissible. I don't think Wikipedia expected it would end up being censored into uselessness by people who follow guidelines as strictly as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion free of personal attacks. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to predict what will be of historical importance. Some people here say we should always wait, but i think that's not a proper concept for a modern internet encyclopedia, and we should make a reasonable guess based on the sources. I see the NYT sources, and two for MSNBC have been added since the nomination. . I agree with the sensible part of Miss Tempeste's statement, that this is going to be significant, and that she is a significant spokesperson. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a CNN source that described Clark as the "lead complainant" in the filings and the article talks about her. Because of that and other sources now cited in the article, it passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although HuffPo sources are worrisome. Shii (tock) 04:34, 21 May 2013 (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.