Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Pender

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 no consensus. Clearly enough WP:SIGCOV, but people are split on whether they focus primarily on the organization or there is enough content on her alone. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Pender[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)

I am concerned that this is a biography of a low profile individual, who has not sought out publicity. We must take care and ensure sensitivity and privacy concerns are thought about when writing BLPs. Sure, if my kids got the best A-level marks and qualified to go to Oxbridge, and got a note in the local paper, I'd feel pretty chuffed - but it doesn't mean I'd want an encyclopedia article about them.

The article would sit better as part of 93% Club, which could do with some expansion (less than 2K prose), but it would be useful to gauge consensus on whether Pender should be a search term too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pender is not low profile, she's already been reported in four different national news media (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC) as well as local newspapers. The initial redirect which effectively deleted page (without discussion) suggested that Pender was notable for only one event WP:BLP1E . This is not the case, the organisation she founded now has 45 clubs nationally and is tackling an important issue. This is not about whether her parents (or even Sophie herself) want a wikipedia biography but about whether she is notable, which she clearly is. @Ritchie333: @Jesswade88:

Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 93% Club. She is the founder of a marginally notable charity. Apart from some local coverage of her at school, she is a WP:BLP1E case. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, and one day she will be more widely notable. Anything significant about her can be added to 93% Club. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the organisation she founded now has 45 clubs nationally and is tackling an important issue" Yes, I know, I rescued that article, 93% Club from deletion myself. That doesn't answer the question "do we need two articles basically saying the same thing?" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An organisation and its founder are clearly not the same thing, taking that argument to its logical conclusion would mean we'd merge Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia. Founders are as notable as the organisations they found. I can't help thinking that if she was a man we might not be having this discussion Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that accusation offensive. I have not mentioned the subject's gender anywhere in this debate, and I have rescued a lot of articles about women from deletion over the years. To expand on the Jimbo / Wikipedia analogy, if Pender starts appearing on Question Time arguing about the rights of state-educated children for equal opportunities in employment (against, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg), then that would be a good time to have a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)

Sorry @Ritchie333:, I didn't mean to offend. I've had many similar discussions when creating articles about women, for example Gayle Laakmann McDowell. I've created hundreds of new biographies over the years and it's always the women (never the men) who get deleted or have their articles shrunk significantly. If there's a strong case for deletion of Sophie Pender, I'll endeavour to listen to all the arguments without prejudice or unconcious bias Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is not a low profile figure; she actually seems to be a prominent public speaker. There's a clear claim to fame, continuing coverage and plenty of sources, passing WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duncan Hull; profiles in BBC News and The Guardian meet WP:GNG. That's not "a note in the local paper". --GRuban (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GRuban, I don't think you understand the reason I started this debate. Principally, it's because the sources you mention are used to write content in an existing article, and the remaining information that cannot be kept in the existing article, 93% Club, there is very little left. So I am concerned about having two "eh" articles against one decent one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 93% Club. While Guardian and BBC are, indeed, not local papers, the coverage in them is mostly about the organization, not her. The BBC article is also mostly WP:INTERVIEW. Overall I don't think there is enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant keeping an article about her, but she may become notable in the future (WP:TOOSOON?). I recommend SOFTDELETE by redirecting it without deletion to the 93% Club. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 93% Club, her background can be expanded on in that article. This article feels a bit premature, as most sources focus on the club instead of the person. While this is a borderline case, I think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to biographies and redirect. 15 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Clearly not a low profile individual and the rationale that we'd be "protecting" an adult by deleting her biography feels paternalistic. If the subject requested deletion herself I might consider it, but this ain't that. Using Google News, I could find only one news items about the 93% Club that doesn't mention Pender. pburka (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 93% Club as the sources focus on the club rather than her as an individual, so there is no need for a separate article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the organization per above. The WP:SIGCOV is of the org not the person. As a general rule, WP should never be the first place to write a biography of a person. The sigcov for a WP bio needs to be other bios, not just some coverage of a person in an article about something else. Levivich 14:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SIGCOV from the BBC and The Guardian. There is ample coverage of Sophie as well as the organisation. Being quoted and covered in such major publications means she is not low profile, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she has received significant coverage in two major publications.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently fairly split between Keep/Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has significant coverage from the major media and reliable source to justify keeping. It also probably satisfies WP:THREE and more. VocalIndia (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Can attest from AfC that irrespective of gender, it’s common to tell org leaders that if they are only known for work with that org, it’s a fairly high bar to merit a content fork from it. Speaking of Dear Leader, Jimbo just acknowledged this issue the other day. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2021 (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.