Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Razavi (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Razavi[edit]

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

Appears to be NN individual lacking non-trivial support. References are either listings or examples of her articles. Nothing in-depth to support article. reddogsix (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN journo doing their job.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some additional references. A previous discussion after I created the page in February 2015 decided this journalist was notable enough for inclusion. I would argue as contributors did then that regular contributions to The Guardian and teaching on behalf of that newspaper is an assertion of notability. If it is decided this entry should be removed, I would suggest many other journalists' entries should also be removed, e.g. Jon Henley, Jenny Kleeman, Jon Bounds, and that perhaps my project to increase the coverage of journalists here is misguided. Journotracker 15:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was only one previous discussion that took place November 26 2013. What you refer to in 2/2015 was a comment that the article did not meet the criteria for A7 deletion and was not a discussion by the Wikipedia community. If we review the references in the article I find 4-404 pages; 4-lists of articles she penned; 2-instances of her name being in a list; 6-minor mentions; 1-lacking any mention of the individual; and 1-self published blog article. These are hardly enough to support the inclusion of the individual in Wikipedia. Have I missed something? reddogsix (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that subject is sufficiently notable to be included as she regularly contributes to notable press titles. Wikipedia features many lesser known subjects. Subjects do not need to be stars in order to be included, but notable enough to be cited by reliable sources that meet Wikipedia standards. This subject fits that criteria. Current Wikipedia coverage of journalists is very weak compared to celebrities etc, and more coverage (as long as impartial, meaningful and well cited) should be encouraged. -- delilah_folk 19:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide where, "...contributes to notable press titles," is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. I see no extensive review of the articles. Wikipedia may include lessor subjects, but we are discussing Lauren Razavi, no one else. Read WP:WAX - other stuff may exist, but it has no bearing here. You refer to reliable sources, but the "references" are trivial in nature - see the breakdown above. I cannot comment on the coverage of journalists; however, I agree that coverage of all qualified subjects should be encouraged, but not at the expense of the established standards. (By the way, no one is discouraging their inclusion.) reddogsix (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I've just replaced the three links with errors that a user mentioned above. All links direct to valid pages now. -- delilah_folk 20:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A list of workshops she has taught, one sentence with her name, and a page that lacks mention of her are far from non-trivial entries. reddogsix (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough independent and in-depth coverage to pass BLP. Delta13C (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a promotional advert for the journalist in question, probably written by the journalist herself or some other close COI. I checked the refs and none of them are RS, mostly trivial or links to her work - nothing to indicate notability. The two keep votes in this AFD haven't addressed the nominators concerns - nor can they in my opinion. Previously deleted at AFD. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as there are several listed sources but there could also be a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 9 January 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.