Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Abraham

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Debate has been relisted three times and still there seems to be no consensus for any outcomes.

(non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Corina Abraham

Corina Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is more a coatrack to talk about Roe 8 than it is a

notable. Abraham herself lacks coverage about her in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Being referred to as "significant" in such a manner is meaningless in terms of notability. "artist with works within a government collection". Which one? City of Melville's art collection? Whoopty fuckin doo. Koori Mail? All is see is a photo with lots of people who attended a conference. Trivial coverage. Melville Herald? A local paper. Whats the nature of the coverage? Given the coverage of Roe 8 let's write an article on not Roe 8? She's not the issue, Roe 8 is. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the notability prior to Roe 8? How does she pass GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a writ submitter over a complex issue in the public eye in Perth, with earlierreporting Melville Herald and Koori Mail as stated by Gnangarra, it is just a short matter of time that extra refs will clearly further indicate notability of the person against the afd argument JarrahTree 10:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a writ submitter is not Inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep?
WP:JUSTAVOTE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe Corina Abraham is notable, and meets
surmountable problem and I've already proposed a solution. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Your proposed solution would solve the BLP1E issue but does nothing to address the lack of notability demonstrated by the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • comment suggest a
    WP:SNOW close before the nominator does something that should be avoided Gnangarra 00:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What, like accuse someone of racism? Oh, wait, it was you that did that. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt accuse you of being racist, I said your actions in nominating multiple Noongar Women had a point appearance given you had prod'd an article that I then converted to merge discussion that triggered your nominations and that you should also take care when doing such multiple nomination. Then you come along and respond to every person all of whom said keep, with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo Gnangarra 04:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've characterized my actions as being racial motivated. then you try to suppress discussion on an article you worked on. and your concerned that I wrote fuck? Why were you keen to suppress discussion? You say I replied to all with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo, please identify some such replies (note plural). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those saying she passes GNG and that there is plenty of sources. Could you please be specific? What sources? What significant coverage outside of Roe 8? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she has been notable for some time, why did it take until 2 April for an article to be created, an article whose entire lead is Corina Abraham is a
    WP:SNOW close here. Notability needs to be adequately established, because it hasn't been yet. If notability can be properly established, I'd be happy to change my vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete definite case of WP:BLP1E. she is only getting coverage because of one issue. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: I can appreciate the arguments about BLP1E. On the other hand, if Wikipedia existed in the 1980s we would've called Eddie Mabo a BLP1E back then too. So I suggest we move it to draft or user space and wait for further developments. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having "plenty of refs" doesn't mean a subject is notable. Six of the refs refer to
one event and the other two don't go anywhere near establishing notability. An article can have 1,000 references and still not meet GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
well said aussie. Lots of coverage doesn't override WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Roe 8 and create that article, keeping a good summary of who this person is and her role in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
While I don't necessarily disagree with this proposal I'm not sure how this would work. According to Perth Freight Link#Roe 8, Roe 8 is a 5km extension to the Roe Highway while Roe Highway says that Roe 8 is The Perth Freight Link, which is a bit circular. One would expect that if the extension goes ahead, Roe 8 would cease to exist as it would just become that extra bit of the Roe Highway, or the Perth Freight Link, or both. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the sources is not even close to extensive, and they certainly weren't enough to result in an article until Roe 8 came along. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable, could you look again at the Koori Mail source? Count the number of words of coverage dedicated to her then tell us how that qualifies as extensive. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E does apply: her artistic work is trivial, her persona story of the hospitalization is wildly inappropriate content. It is not clear from the article whether she is the principal figure in the opposition, or the person in whose name the opposition is taking court action. I redirect to hte article section on the opposition to the road might be appropriate, at least now. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP1E over a relatively minor issue, no international coverage. Aeonx (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • World Highways has coverage[3] thats a UK based magazine it even mentions Corina Abraham in regards to activity in December 2015, the writ was lodged in March 2016. Then there is the International Business times based in New York[4](noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case), that has 13 million subscribers publishes in 10 countries and 7 languages Gnangarra 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case that's laughable. If a source can't even name the subject, that's not really a good source for establishing notability of someone. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
two sources the first mentions Abrahams, 3 months before the writs Gnangarra 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires significant coverage in sources. It says "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." The first source doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage and the second doesn't address the topic (Abraham) at all, let alone directly. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It has already been established that the quantity of sources is irrelevant. Six of the 8 sources are related to the Roe 8/BLP1E issue. A 7th is an extract from a directory of items in an art collection and the 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article.
WP:GNG requires significant coverage and that simply isn't there once you remove the BLP1E content. As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article. It is, after all, just opposition to a 5km road extension and these things happen all the time. A non-notable event can't be used to establish an individual's notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Everything to do with all of the Roe highway extension plans are linked with a particularly messy aspect of current Western Australian politics and is almost reported on daily basis in Perth, Western Australia in relation to the component parts of moving trucks from the eastern suburbs into Fremantle. Just because local editors are not full time producing potential on the subject is not necessarily a reflection on the impact of the issues being squeezed into an assumed 'non-notability' state JarrahTree 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Roe 8 not having a standalone article isn't because of notability, but because it would be a redundant content fork, given that Roe 8 is covered in the Perth Freight Link article. - Evad37 [talk] 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might note that I said "As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article." (emphasis added) If the opposition was great enough, and there were enough sources, there is nothing stopping a separate article being created. Roe 8 coverage in both Perth Freight Link an Roe Highway is pretty limited, but quite appropriate given my knowledge of the matter (my daughter is in Perth for nine months and she has been keeping me up to date) so I do agree it would be a redundant content fork to create a separate article and you can't claim an individual is notable because they oppose something that isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. -_AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roe 8 has been an ongoing issue for over twenty years, because someone related to you has lived in Perth for nine months doesnt make them an expert on Perth, or Roe 8. Gnangarra 11:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say, nor did I imply, that it did make them an expert. Please note that here in the east we have controversial road projects going on for a lot longer than 20 years. The Newcastle Inner City Bypass, for example, still isn't complete even after 50 years of planning and construction. That Roe 8 has been going on for so long makes Abraham's contribution even less significant. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable is fallacious reasoning, given that notability isn't the only thing that determines whether something has a standalone article. Per
WP:NODEADLINE, so not everything that could be written has been written). - Evad37 [talk] 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable - That's not what I said. You're concentrating far too much on the road and not the subject of this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the one who brought up Roe 8's notability in your comments of 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC). Is the notability or otherwise of Roe 8 really relevant here? - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant insofar as it is being used to establish Abraham's notability. If the notability of an event has not been demonstrated (this is different to an event actually being notable - an event can be notable without its notability being demonstrated - a lot of articles end up deleted because of this) can we use opposition to that apparently non-notable event to establish notability? Remember, while Roe 8 might be notable in WA, the rest of the world doesn't even know it exists, so to us it's not notable as it hasn't been demonstrated in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a guideline or policy that says we need to consider notability as demonstrated in the article? Because as far as I am aware the usual interpretation, as stated in the
WP:N guideline, is "Article content does not determine notability" and "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". In any case, there are sources from beyond WA for Roe 8 such as constructionindustrynews.net, Construction Index (UK), The Guardian Australia edition (1) (2), Shanghai Daily, Lexology.com and heaps of coverage from our national broadcaster ABC[5] (and I recall TV coverage being on ABC News 24, not just the local version of the ABC TV news bulletin) - Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Simply being a custodian, on its own, does not establish notability.
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we ignore the Roe 8 matter, the subject just does not meet notability requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
also being part of the Aboriginal Heritage assessment that resulted in the site being listed, Roe 8 has a long history as protection of the area, has been already we have a court case from Roe 8 that has impact beyond Roe 8 on the WA Government run by the Save the Beelier Wetlands group which is who Corina spoke for in 2010 6 years before this event. Then the letter addressed to the Prime Minister read into Parliament which is while not unique isnt common either. Now we have her a plaintiff in Supreme Court writ(highest court in WA to commence an action) which also will have impact on some 1600 other sites that the current WA Government has removed from the heritage register. Corinas involvement is not BLP1E because it is significant, her impact reaches beyond the event to other areas and when you look at the FSH aspect her being written about even if you want to describe it as padding for the story wouldnt have occured without her already being of note as a Noongar custodian and public figure, oh and whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. Gnangarra 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. " — That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant to Abraham's notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but it is relevent in the sense that Corina was affected by those events, it demostrates that she has a level of community recognition(notability) before/beyond the court case. Gnangarra 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being reported in the news might be relevant to her notability, but the "controversy ... failures in the management [of FSH] ..." have no bearing on her notability, which is why I said that they were irrelevant to this discussion.
Actually I'm not so sure that the article adds to her notability - she was mentioned because she was in surgery at the time of the FSH flood, not because she was a notable Indigenous elder or Roe 8 opponent. The FSH article does not mention anything of those; it merely describes her as "A 38-year-old woman". Wikipedia:Notability#Events says "routine news coverage ... is not significant coverage". I know that is about events, not people, but the principle is the same - the news article is about FSH, not about Corina Abraham. If the Wikipedia article is kept, then the FSH item and ref is worth keeping (it's related to her health issues, which are notable if she is, and also covered by another ref), but I'm not so sure it actually attests to her notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that we don't need to keep any of the FSH content or the ref. There is already a ref that supports the claim about her health problems. The FSH issue is just being used to pad the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're drifting off topic here. Perhaps we should defer discussion about the FSH content until if/after any decision to keep the article. (Similar to Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could suggest something that is relevant to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails
    notability is not inherited. Obviously no prejudice against re-creation. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:41, 1 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corina_Abraham&oldid=1091562191"