Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Tie (2nd nomination)

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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Tie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

I'd like to revisit the previous AfD from a couple years ago. The promised improvements have not materialized, and this article remains promotional in tone. I am not sure that the sources relied upon for notability would be accepted today - Forbes 30 under 30 coverage, and a profile in a student magazine of a school she attended (making the coverage dependent). That leaves a single profile in CNN; not enough to establish notability. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that her CNN featured article/profile is strong. Other existing sources include Fast company, and industry specialized publications, together provide strong evidence of notability based on ~4 being reliable sources. I also just added the Toronto Guardian article that describes her COVID-19 testing tool (the article pointed out by HouseOfChange). In regards to the Forbes reference, please note that Forbes "blog posts" by one of their many thousands of contributors (often paid for / sponsored) are not equivalent to Forbes 30 under 30 list which is staff verified and independent, hers is the latter and would qualify as reliable. The subject is also a recipient of a Thiel Fellowship, one of the most prestigious startup awards for young people, for which there was significant press, she is included in as a recipient. CosmicNotes (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete Struggling to see how winning a prize as an undergrad and setting up a business is sufficiently notable to get you an encyclopedia entry. Agree about the promotional tone StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — StupidLookingKid (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and newly created account. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I found more RS and removed some PROMO, so please per WP:HEY take a look at current article. Both 2018 and 2019 Forbes 30 under 30 (2 different categories) are by staff, not "contributors." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)]][reply]
So that Forbes 30 under 30 thing is impressive? Got to admit it strikes me a bit dull tbh (half the world must be named in those lists by now - what are the Forbes criteria?), but happy to accept it if it is a legit 'thing' StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — StupidLookingKid (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It is widely considered to be very prestigious, the selection of recipients makes national news (example: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/six-irish-people-included-on-forbes-30-under-30-list-1.4205031) In regards to the selection process https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-nominations/ "Reporters, editors and expert judges consider a variety of factors, including: funding, revenue, social impact, inventiveness and potential. Nominee shortlists are shared with each category's four-judge panel who select the final 30 listees in their assigned category." In a given field, there are a few million "under-30s" working in it, the award honors the top 30 in each field. On its own, Forbes 30 under 30 is not enough for notability per WP standards, however, taken together with her CNN profile, news feature in Fast Company, news feature in TechCo, and Theil fellowship news stories (more prestigious than Forbes)... together it strongly meets notability requirements with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search for "Forbes 30 under 30" lists in AfD will show that we do not generally assume notability based upon them. FalconK (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed, that "Forbes 30 under 30" alone does not provide notability, but taken together with the other news and awards cited, I think from that there is a strong case for notability here.
    • Sure, but what's out there is seriously lacking. Coverage in Fast Company is limited to a single paragraph in an article about the Thiel Fellowship. The Thiel Fellowship also doesn't automatically confer notability; though a few recipients are indeed notable, there seems to be a preponderance for many or most of them to have promotional and questionably sourced articles created about them. Tech.co doesn't appear to cover her at all - the only result on the site with her name is a listing of her name and company with no content. The CNN Business profile article is primarily an interview with her, relies heavily on direct quotations from her, and so is questionably independent - but it is also but one source, not enough to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. So what is left? FalconK (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Per GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The article cites substantial coverage in Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, a photo and paragraph in Fast Company, all in 2015. Then in 2018, there is extremely detailed coverage by CNN when she became a partner at Cervin. This degree of coverage meets WP:BASIC. Notability can and should be deduced from policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, and plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. WP:BASIC is met. Btw the nominator is a Paid AfD nominator?VocalIndia (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • VocalIndia's thoughts are welcomed but the accusation was unnecessary. FalconK seems to be a respected user with 17 years of editing experience here. Such accusations should include evidence or should be respectfully removed. The guidelines of Wikipedia are to assume good faith. CosmicNotes (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really Sorry to FalconK. I'm misunderstanding you because you are only puting AFD on many businesspersons. VocalIndia (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a reason why this AfD remains open, looks like 3+ weeks old, I thought the policy is that they are closed or relisted by admins after ~7 days? CosmicNotes (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also angry on this bias at some AfDs. Some AfD closure are biased. They will not close until we get more delete votes. How Shameless admins. What is the community value of these AfDs? VocalIndia (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VocalIndia, there appears to have been an issue transcluding this page to the AfD log; as far as I can tell, the discussion has only ever been listed for today January 22nd's log, which would explain why the admins that patrol AfD haven't closed it yet: it wasn't in the logs that they have been patrolling. If my assessment is correct, it actually shouldn't be closed until the 29th, when it's been properly listed for at least a week, at which point it can be closed normally. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was apparently due to a hiccup with the relisting script, during re-listing [1] the script gave up mid-way and didn't re-transclude or add a tag to this discussion. The discussion was originally correctly transcluded for an entire week so it may be closed – Thjarkur (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, I am convinced by the 30 under 30 thing (and look forward to finding the Forbes 80 under 80 list). Am a bit of newb but agree that leaving a vote open seems a bit wrong. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (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/Cathy_Tie_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1002108785"