Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Lattner

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Lattner[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)

A passing mention in Business Insider and inclusion on a list of "The 39 most powerful female engineers of 2018" isn't significant coverage.-Ich (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Ich (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ich: There are 2 reliable and independent references. 2 reliable primary references from LLVM. And 2 primary references from Tanya Lattner official public profiles. Care to ellaborate why this isn't significant coverage?[TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 23:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TRANSviada: It's not that Business Insider isn't a reliable publication, but the passing mentions of Tanya don't constitute significant coverage. Looking at the other women in the list article, many of them do not have articles; the ones that do, such as Sylvia Acevedo, Erica Baker, Caitlin Kalinowski, Sandy Carter, Julie Larson-Green, are the subject of substantial other coverage and the articles do not rely solely on their inclusion on the list.-Ich (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)i[reply]

@Ich: Ok, thanks for taking the time to explain. [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. As stated by the nominator, the Business Insider article about programmers and behaviour is a passing mention. The inclusion in a list from Business Insider isn't significant coverage either. The remainder of the sourcing in the article consists of two blog posts from the foundation for which she is president and her Facebook and Linkedin pages. None of those are independent nor are they really reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

idk but keep - @Whpq: The first guideline you cited do not tell anything about multiple realiable sources that aplies to the article. The second says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". So multiple sources are expected, but not required to estabilish notability. About the blog posts, according to Wikipedia guidelines, a "primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". So these sources can be used, as I used them to make "straightfoward, descriptive statements of facts...", and there aren't any statement in that guideline saying this would fall under the "unreliable category". [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 00:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that are used to verify facts in the article; these sources can prom,ary sources. But these sources are not usable for establishing notability. There is no bright line number of sources that are an automatic pass on notability because the type and depth of coverage is looked at when making a judgement. The coverage as presented, and as best that I could find in my own searches are not much ,ore than passing mentions, so having to sources with shallow coverage is not sufficient to meet the requirement of inclusion in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out your views and taking the time to explain it to me. [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 12:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ They have reason. I do care but not willing to argument anymore. [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TRANSviada: I'd support a WP:SOFTDELETE, as I am cognizant of Wikipedia deficient coverage of female engineers and scientists, she has the potential to become notable, and I hate to see hard work going to waste.-Ich (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ich:I'd also support. I think she's already notable, just not have much coverage yet. LLVM is widely used, and she had/has an important role in the project development. But ok, I'm only one and I do not have enough spare time that i'd will to argument about this. I did a pastebin here, so, when she gets more "reliable independent" coverage, anyone can try to improve the article and add it to Wikipedia again. Thanks for the recogniction [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 12:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone in the world has the "potential" to become notable. We create biographical articles for the ones who actually succeed at it. This subject hasn't. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 16:21, 22 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.