Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarafina Nance

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 per WP:SNOW (six keeps with no dissent) and the likelihood that, with this starting point, continued discussion is more likely to focus on the nomination history than on the merits of the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarafina Nance[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)

Pretty extensive article for a first-year grad student. Creator argues GNG, but I don't see it in the sources. The subject clearly has potential to become notable in the future, but looks like a case of too soon for a page at the moment. Take Note List (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of her surgery includes some substantial and ongoing reporting, which counts in her favor vis-a-vis the GNG, and she's been cited as a subject-matter expert more than passingly [1][2] (in addition to the briefer appearances like [3][4][5]). XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep Nominator has a grand total of 14 edits, 10 of which were made in the space of 12 minutes exactly 1 week ago, and two of which used ReFill. If nominator were commenting in this discussion, closing admin would be encouraged to discount their opinion due to bad faith. Meanwhile for the article: Nance has articles dedicated to her from Business Today (India)[6], Hindustan Times, [7], BBC News [8]. She gets asked for her opinion on stars by NPR [9] and National Geographic [10]. The General notability guideline: she meets it. --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - yet another nomination by a new editor of one of Jesswade88's articles. Created an account, made exactly enough edits to be autoconfirmed, waited a few days, and nominated it. Are we really going to permit harassment by nomination? If an experienced editor in good standing wants to renominate, so be it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't bothered to look at the nominator's edit history, but yes, that is concerning. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced, looks like she meets WP:GNG to me. Tacyarg (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Disclaimer, I made this page. I'm not sure who you are Take Note List, but please leave me alone! Focus on making Wikipedia better, not trying to take women's biographies down. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He/she *is* focusing on making WP better. How? By trying to take down a biography he/she considers unworthy. It's not about YOU. Hence your "leave me alone" epithet is unfounded and unnecessarily escalatory. 2600:1702:4380:5FA0:4C84:4B71:F2D8:A6C4 (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly sufficient coverage to be notable. Does look like a bad faith nomination. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.