Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim White (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. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim White

Kim White (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)

Not enough to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to pass
  WP:BIO. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Claim to fame is heading a small non-profit. No non-trivial coverage beyond the usual local stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no way in which this person passes the GNG or is notable as the head of a company, and with all the boards and stuff she's served on, it's clear that this is vanispamcruft. Drmies (talk)
• Delete- This is just a CV dressed up as an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per 3 above editors and nom. Fails
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - New and improved references, Checks out for WP:BIO & WP:NOTABLE. This was why it was kept the last time in this Serial
  WP:PROD. We ought not to be axing coverage of notable female CEOs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We ought not to be axing coverage of notable CEOs period, and we ought not to be keeping non-notable ones, regardless of gender. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The significant coverage in this article in Chattanooga Times Free Press and this article in Garden & Gun is enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 12:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article was seriously underdeveloped. It is a WP:Orphan. No Projects were listed on its talk page (corrected now). The notification of the proposed deletion should be again relisted/refreshed to include all those projects. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references that you missed. No compliance with

WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - CV masquerading as a WP article. She's a well-meaning local doing the best she can for her local community, but that doesn't help her meet
  WP:GNG. Local coverage doesn't count, nor does her having been nearly in the presence of Bob Corker. Passing mentions in articles about the town don't count either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep  I checked one of the references in the article and it was totally focused on the topic.  I don't know why this is at AfD.  I once fell into the trap of !voting to delete because all of the references were local, but I was wrong.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a vanity article for someone of little or no notability. After reading the appended references, one has to conclude that this is a highly accomplished woman who has risen to a leadership role in the community and has the potential to rise much further. She is still on the local level, as has been pointed out, but so are tens of thousands of other entries with fewer references and less to show in terms of achievements. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First and foremost, there is absolutely nothing in WP guidelines that says local coverage is unacceptable. Specifically, the guidelines say the sources determine whether or not a subject is notable. If local sources repeatedly cover her in pieces such as this, she is notable to Chattanooga. But apparently
  WP:BEFORE wasn't done, as there are more than local sources. She has been covered in an article by Bloomberg Business], was a featured speaker for [TEDxTalks] event, was one of the women's profiles of CitiScope Magazine and been covered on news affiliates for [ABC] and [CBS]. Meets GNG with significant coverage over time in multiple independent sources. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And

WP:SIGCOV 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as it's worth noting the listed company
  River City Company actually goes to the Chattanooga, Tennessee article so I would've actually suggested moving to the company article if it had its own article thus delete for now until a better independent article is available. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep clearly passes
  WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Soft keep – Appears to be at least somewhat notable, but this article is in need of some work. United States Man (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Per Wikipedia standards, article passes the criteria . Devopam (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Appears to fall under the bar required for BLP. More sources indicating broad coverage would be needed for keep.
  talk) 09:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Looking at the sources presented in this AfD:

• Free Times Press. This doesn't say anything substantial. It's perfunctory local coverage about a local person who got appointed to run a local non-profit.
• Garden and Gun. This is a web zine which describes itself as, a lifestyle brand. The article itself is more of a listicle than anything else, covering, Five Chattanoogans helping the city surge. Kim White gets a paragraph, same as everybody else. That's not substantial coverage.
• Bloomberg Business. I certainly agree this is a major news outlet, with national scope, so good there. But, the article's not about White. She's mentioned twice, halfway through the piece. Again, not significant coverage.
• TEDx. Certainly, I would classify giving a TED talk as a significant event. It's first-person, however, so that's a problem. But, as I look closer, I realize it's not really a TED Talk. It's a TEDx Talk From the web site, This video was filmed at an independently organized TEDx event and uploaded by the organizer. I'm having trouble fitting that into our
  WP:RS
  requirements.

This adds up to a number of passing mentions and dubious sources. I don't see it passing

WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Quote, "Looking at the sources presented in this AfD:"  Seriously?  You only looked at this AfD and you represent this as sufficient to form a delete opinion under our WP:N guideline?  Quote, "Kim White gets a paragraph, same as everybody else. That's not substantial coverage."  Seriously?  What WP:GNG says is, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  The nature of the statement implies that you are unaware of what defines "trivial mentions".  What makes this post different is that you are being forthright about your research, and in so doing you give other editors a chance to refute your comments using the force of reason, instead of typing "delete fails WP:GNG".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As Cunard notes above, "the significant coverage in this article in Chattanooga Times Free Press and this article in Garden & Gun is enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline." -- Jreferee (talk) 04:07, 11 January 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.