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. لenna vecia 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

May not meet notability standards. Referenced articles are either written by the subject (i.e. promotional links) or only tangentially reference the subject. As the references are not about the subject of this article, it should be merged and/or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonka09 (talk • contribs) 2009/06/16 14:59:40

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd nomination? Please link to the 1st one as this is clearly an invalid afd as is as implies that their has been a 1stnomination. Is this deliberate. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfies notability requirements. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this article satisfies the notability requirements; the referencing is minimal, is she primarily notable for throwing pies at two famous people? Presumably more than that should be required. Not linking to a prior nomination doesn't render this AfD invalid, by the way. Nathan^T 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not feel qualified to determine whether or not Green is notable enough to have an article, but I would just like to point out her entry on Marijuana Policy Project's website to provide detail about her background. If all of the information present was included in the article, such as the fact that she has co-authored a book, contributes weekly to U.S. News & World Report, and has been published by The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Maxim, would this make the subject notable? If the information presented makes the subject notable, I'd be happy to help improve the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the information provided in the article, she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If Another Believer, or anyone else, were to add the sources and material mentioned above to the article then she might meet the guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning towards Delete I do not find other people's arguments to delete valid or compelling--the article being unsourced is not grounds for deletion--rather one must argue that the article cannot be cleaned up and reliable sources cannot be found to establish notability. This must be demonstrated, not merely asserted. I am finding more sources than are currently on the article. A quick search: [1]. However, I don't think that articles she has authored are sufficient to establish notability; the majority of those hits are ones she has authored. There is other coverage in there, her giving a proctor-and-gamble executive a pie-in-the-face at a protest. But in my opinion not enough to establish notability. The MPP link that Another Believer gave is not independent. The book she authored: [2] does not seem to even be easily available, and I can't even find basic publishing info, let alone any reviews in reliable independent sources. To other editors: please, if you want to argue to delete, do more work instead of just throwing in your two cents. If you did your homework before commenting, please share your insights in such a way that clearly demonstrates your points instead of just asserting your perspective. Cazort (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; rereading my comment it makes it seem like my opinion was based entirely and solely on the content in the article. She has written quite a few articles for reputable sources, but these consist primarily of workplace advice and that sort of thing. The volume of coverage about her specifically is still minimal, much relating to her pie-in-the-face antics, and I don't think that has qualified her for notability at this time. Nathan^T 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to satisfy our threshold of notability. The article's subject apparently relies on trivial mentions in journals. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I offer my thought here as pertains to my view of "wikipedia is in part here to tell the generation of year 2300 about us". Now, this article subject is not rocket science. However, it would be important (at least I think, one may disagree) to show the lengths people of today went to in order to do activism for animals. Do we have this covered elswhere? If so, maybe merge? Turqoise127 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at PETA and similar articles, sure. I don't think there is enough here to merge into a more general article like that, however. Nathan^T 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. The few refs given are mainly self-published (i.e., PETA links), and tossing a couple of pies and writing a few op-eds are not enough to meet the threshold.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the point of the article is to describe animal rights activism, the content should be merged under that topic. This appears to be a vanity article about a person who has been involved in notable organizations without crossing the line to notable person. Having been published in notable publications does not warrant an entry. Being a general staffer at notable organizations also does not warrant an entry. Research on this person shows nothing of lasting historical significance that is not or cannot be covered by articles on the organizations or movements referenced. I believe it fails to meet notability standards. Wonka09 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments advocating keeping the article are simple declarations that it meets notability standards without any explanation. As far as I can tell, the grounds for keeping this article would allow anyone with published op ed pieces and a newspaper article that mentions them on their high school athletic team to meet notability standards. I could be wrong, but I just don't see how this article is anything but a vanity piece. Wonka09 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is close, but I would say keep. rmosler (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (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.