Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ieshia Evans

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. Pretty clearly no support for deletion. Repurposing the article to be about the photograph or merging it received enough discussion to merit serious consideration; however, it can be discussed on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ieshia Evans[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sppedying this because there is a reasonable claim of notability, which I would counter with WP:ONEEVENT TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Obviously with a lot of work) I think it has a chance of becoming another Tank Man or Phan Thi Kim Phuc - X201 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To compare this to "Tank Man" from the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is just ridiculous. It was an iconic image that is burned into the minds of everyone who has seen it. Sorry but I don't believe Ieshia Evans is notable enough for a Wiki article on this incident alone. Vote to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.65.132 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that according to CBS News, the photo of Evans "has also been likened to photos captured in past civil rights protests as well as one of the takeover in Tienanmen Square in China that captured a man staring down the tank"; the Women in the World Foundation says, "Some have even compared the image to the famous shot of a young student staring down military tanks at Tiananmen Square in 1989"; and The Guardian says that "The photograph drew comparisons to other historic images such as those showing the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see The Washington Post: "The young woman’s stoic pose drew comparisons to Rosa Parks’s refusing to give up a seat on a segregated bus or 'tank man' facing down war machines in Tiananmen Square." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but the article should be moved to a title making it about the photo. The news coverage is considerable, international, and enduring: the photo was taken in July and I just found coverage from November. I believe it squeaks by under the general notability guideline as a viral phenomenon, but it is not a biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic and focus of the article should be changed from a BLP to the photograph. The photograph is notable, the person is not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion in Shooting of Alton Sterling#Aftermath and reactions would be justified but fails notability as an individual Lame Name (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is one of BBC 100 Women of 2016 100 Women (BBC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudass10 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recentism versus BBC 100 Women is a difficult one. Deb (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable at least through BBC 100 Women, if not before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Black Lives Matter. I have run several searches on her and find no material prior to this single event. While I agree that the image is iconic, this appears to be a one-time event and is acknowledged as her first participation in activism. Recognition by the BBC does not make her automatically notable under WP standards. SusunW (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly for reason of the media coverage, in second place for her nominations (AfroAmerica Network Black Woman of 2016, BBC 100 Women of 2016). --Chris Howard (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of an iconic image, with sufficient press to pass WP:GNG --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may have been brought into the public eye by a single photograph, but sufficient coverage following this to meet notability. fish&karate 12:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling. Subject of a photograph with no any additional event. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to be about the image rather than the person. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists that treats the photo as the subject – for example in The Guardian, The Atlantic, WNYC, CBS, Reuters, and Le Figaro – whereas coverage about the person is less in-depth. Even appearing in the BBC's 100 Women mainly supports notability for this one event – The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. The photo itself doesn't appear to be titled, so I suggest renaming the article simply Image of Ieshia Evans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also coverage of the photo in The New York Times Magazine and The Washington Post. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2016 (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.