Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Min Reyes

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Min Reyes[edit]

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

Non-notable individual known for a high number of tweets. The references are essentially the same article republished in different venues. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with the prod, removed by me, the nominator seems to misunderstand the state of this article. The references are not the same article republished in different venues: the first ref is a bylined op-ed piece by Reyes in the Georgia Straight; references 2, 3 and 4 are a story about Reyes originally published in Canada's largest circulation newspaper the Toronto Star, written by Antonia Zerbisias and then reproduced on the Star's web portal under its "Moneyville" banner; ref 4 is her inclusion in a photo slideshow on "Faces of Canada's Occupy protests" in the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest national newspaper. So, one could argue that this combination of her own published work, a feature story on her in the Star and her inclusion in the G&M's photo essay does not constitute enough coverage, but to say that they are all the same thing is to be a stranger to the truth. I for one believe the refs do establish notability, if just barely. Moreover, I see that she has been the subject of independent coverage by the Metro International papers in Canada (see here) as well as a more fleeting mention in Canada's other national newspaper, the National Post, here. She does appear to be a notable Canadian social media activist and political organizer with the Occupy Vancouver movement. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Neutral There is one wp:notability-suitable reference, copies of it in three places and is listed as three references. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i've added the Metro News cite and formatted the refs. And I still hold that her inclusion in the Globe and Mail's photo essay on Canada's Occupy leaders is not to be disregarded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just noting that there are three articles which (after my admittedly quick review) appear to be copies of each other. And this one is the only one with even medium-depth coverage. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the recently added Metro News story in which she is the sole interviewee and subject of the headline is at least "medium-depth coverage," but we shall see what the consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to neutral. IMHO this one is right on the fence. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weak keep. In addition to the Star, she also gets a fair amount of attention in this Globe and Mail article. That plus the other odds and sods of media notice barely push her over the notability bar for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that one but is really using her as an example participant putting what she said in the article rather than being coverage of her. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established by this TorStar piece--KenWalker | Talk 23:57, 13 October 2012 (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.