Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Hickey

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 speedy keep. Snowball, significant coverage and yes, Gemma Hickey does matter and is notable. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Hickey[edit]

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

*Delete: I am trying to understand the rational for Hickey being notable. The first homosexuals to marry in NL do not have Wikipedia articles and they were also engaged in activism. Are we saying that Hickey is notable as a filmmaker?--NL19931993 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also Hickey was the head of a national organization but this does not automatically make someone notable. Also doing international travel to promote your organization does not automatically make you notable. Having a local non-profit in a small city, with no staff or major operations, also does not automatically make you notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/corner-brook-volunteers-add-female-content-to-wikipedia-1.5057040 I am not sure if Hickey was one of the articles but it may be relevant to this discussion.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC based on sustained and thorough coverage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] TJMSmith (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV as found by TJMSmith. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJMSmith. Nomination seems to be based on WP:WHATABOUTX completely ignoring the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, also nom should like get woke that use of “homosexuals” is generally demeaning and inappropriate except in clinical usage. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. plethora of press.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, not even remotely borderline. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added above by TJMSmith Dartslilly (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added. Toughpigs (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2020 (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.