Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Andrew

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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Andrew

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

Individual is not notable. She just runs a Facebook page. Wikipedia is not for the biography of every single blogger Jahor (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all 2602:306:BCD8:9DD0:5D5B:8FC6:2FDD:4685 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.80.78 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This woman has mention in several mainstream, high-quality RS and in a whole bunch of lower quality RS. Seems to me that she would pass notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - this is not just some blogger, this is a person who runs a notable blog and who has been interviewed and/or profiled repeatedly by various segments of the science press. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
easy keep - passes GNG.
SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - a quick scan of the refs immediately suggests notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets
general notability guidelines. Puzzling why this was nominated. Cindy(need help?) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Fucking Keep This. Handily meets GNG with many appearances in media—dedicated coverage describing subject's life and career.
WP:Trout for the disruptive SPA nominator. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete She runs a Facebook fan page. She isn't curing cancer. Waste of space article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.216 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this, "Elise Andrew (born 1989) is a British blogger, social media specialist, biologist, and webmaster. She is the founder and maintainer of the Facebook page "I Fucking Love Science"; a hobby which has had her called "the Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook".[1]" Let me quote that again, "the Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook". Does this really sound like the person who deserves an article written about them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.216 (talk • contribs)

Keep. significant coverage of her blog, and independent acknowledgement of her popularity. note: she got a lot of flak for being a female science blogger. of course she doesnt meet
top importance.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Einstein should be deleted, he didn't try to cure cancer.

SarahStierch (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Passes
general notability guidelines. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Easily able to find significant coverage amongst reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I hate doing this, but I have to admit that she has been covered enough to be notable, even if her only claim to fame is running a facebook page. Ducknish (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having received in depth coverage in independent third party sources but falling fowl of
Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- So you would prefer an article about
  I Fucking Love Science than one about Andrew? Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Only if there are reliable sources on it that don't relate to this event. A quick google suggests that we're not exactly drowning in such sources.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  What event? Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  The event in early 2013 when it emerged that it was run by a woman, some people made sexist comments and those sexist comments recieved wide media coverage. See pretty much every independent reference in the
  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  That event, the revelation that the blogger was female, and the near-immediate nasty responses, received wide media coverage. What would you do with those sources? Make an article called Reaction to 'I Fucking Love Science' being run by a woman? Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I would apply
  Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  1E assumes at least one article is written to cover the reports in reliable sources. Which article would you write?
  I Fucking Love Science? Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (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.