Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Combs Weinberg

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. Consensus is that the article passes GNG for reasons other than a political campaign. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Combs Weinberg[edit]

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

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

Doesn't pass notability guidelines WP:N or WP:NPOL as she is just a failed candidate for U.S. Senate who never held public office Redditaddict6 9 01:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for office are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. This article (which already appears as a reference in the article) is about her in the context of education issues, not as an unsuccessful political candidate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, that is independent coverage about her, but I'm unsure if a passion for education passes as notability or verifiability. Redditaddict6 9 05:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter what someone is notable for. As long as they have enough coverage to pass GNG, she could be an antique potato chip collector for all I care. Coverage in several RS over time is what shows notability for GNG, not the topic of why they are notable. Heck, many socialites are very notable just for existing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Eastmain pointed out, she was also notable for her educational contributions. I found more sources and added them. It is because of her advocacy that a program for people with dyslexia was started in her area. There are profiles about her and her work. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Megalibrarygirl. I'm certain the article topic meets GNG and your additions make it more clear. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the article creator. I'm a longtime editor who about 7 years ago began to mostly create articles about women who have made significant contributions to the world but have been overlooked on Wikipedia. Weinberg is a long time education activist/advocate in the rural part of the United States. Also, because she was born in the 1940s much of her work and therefore coverage in reliable sources happened before the dawn of the internet. They don't show in a google search. I appreciate that views can vary, and I'm not infallible, but I do understand policy pretty well and seems clear to me that the article meets GNG. There are multiple reliable sources, and I wouldn't have started the article if there wasn't. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a Straw man argument. I recognize that it may pass WP:GNG which is why I didn't include that in the nomination. However, it doesn't pass notability for a biography (WP:N) nor does she pass as a politician (WP:NPOL). She has been an advocate for education for a long time, but that doesn't make her notable. Many candidates for office are activists, but their articles are deleted for a reason: No notability. Redditaddict6 9 04:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article only has to pass GNG full stop. NPOL doesn't need to apply here at all, especially since it's pretty clear that she's more notable as an education advocate as my sources show. Please take a look at the changes, thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (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.