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. Discussion indicates sufficient directly detailing RS citation to meet GNG and ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Any coverage of her that would be used to establish notability is only in the context of her relationship with Julian Assange, including the sourcing currently in the article. She is not independently notable. Longhornsg (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Spain, and Sweden. Longhornsg (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Stella Assange just spent the last 13 years of her life securing Julian Assange's freedom. This represents a significant legal victory, and indeed, would be considered a considerable career achievement for any attorney. The fact that she is also Julian's wife does not detract from the significance or notability of this accomplishment. Were Stella only Julian's wife and not his attorney, I'd agree that she's not independently notable. However, her legal accomplishment is what makes her notable, rather than her marital status. If you were to strip away the fact that she's Assange's wife, then it seems you'd have to admit that her legal accomplishments and advocacy make her notable. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is strictly sourced to Julian Assange articles, or to stories about their family. I don't see notability outside of the Julian Assange connection, so nothing needing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A factual article about a notable woman. Published author. Sourced and referenced. Wikipedia stop eating your tail and deleting good encyclopaedic content. Firefishy (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is rarely helpful to make broad general statements about Wikipedia during a formal deletion discussion. It usually moves these discussions forward more quickly when AfD contributors stick to policy, guidelines and sourcing. Let's save our personal thoughts for talkspace, shall we? BusterD (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources are third party and reliable. Her work is source checked and notable. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well referenced, enough to pass the WP:SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. None of the keep votes substantively address that the coverage of Stella Assange is not independently but due to her relationship with Julian Assange. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My Keep vote certainly does. You emphasize "her relationship" while failing to acknowledge that the aforementioned relationship is one of attorney-client. She has won a significant victory in helping Julian Assange gain his freedom. The press has treated this as a historic event. You act like she did no work to win this battle and is merely garnering attention because she is the spouse of someone famous. This page has nearly 700,000 views. It should not be deleted. People want information on this attorney. Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are certainly articles where she is the primary focus, rather than Julian Assange, so she may not fail on WP:ANYBIO. Also, I buy the argument that she is a lawyer and author. Agreed, the subject of her work is primarily a well-known guy who happens to be her husband, but this doesn't negate her work. Even without this, she might pass under the description of WP:NOTINHERITED where it says, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG., based on previous observation that there are articles specifically about her. David Malone (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not an expert on wikilawyering, but the article appears to add nothing to the Julian Assange article (his legal fight and personal life). BorisG (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is on Stella Assange. It is a biography that contains information on her early life and education (in addition to her career). Though there is some overlap between this article and the article on Julian Assange, you would anticipate such an overlap between any two biographies on closely related people. Nevertheless, there is indeed additional information in this article about Stella Assange. You seem to have ignored this and fixated on Julian. Ben.Gowar (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First, passes the GNG, there's clearly sources which focus on the subject herself: Stella Moris on her secret family with Julian Assange: ‘He’s unlike anyone I have ever met’ (The Guardian, 16 October 2021), Stella Assange calls on journalists to use FOI system to obtain details on WikiLeaks case (UPI, 27 June 2024). Second, acknowledging that part of the interest in the subject derives from her relationship with Julian Assange, that in itself is not reason not to have an article given the amount of detail on the subject of her role in the campaign to have Assange released, WP:OKFORK. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the arguments of the two "Deletes" have been refuted. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2024 (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.