Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Green (2nd nomination)

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. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green

AfDs for this article:

[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)

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article in Sydney Morning Herald is rather strong, but yes, Google News is mostly WP:PRIMARY.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851	~ Basically just quotes.		~ Rather short section of the article.	~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/			Routine.	✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11	paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2	? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine?		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TLA^tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source ~~article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format~~, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS ^💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS ^💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?

Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : if these are the same person [1] and [2], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA^tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article ~~self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green"~~. GSS ^💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating.

04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS ^💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [3] [4] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.

Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS ^💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this potential source: https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 ... APAC Entrepreneur is solicited advertising. Their article subjects are expected to pay to be included on the site. You might find this interesting: [5]. And this: [6]. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed up the table. TLA^tlak 12:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS ^💬 05:20, 29 March 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.