Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Brookes

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 delete. While this discussion is evenly divided numerically, the source analysis table makes a convincing case for deletion, and has not been answered effectively despite having been there for six days; as such I'm seeing clear consensus to delete. I'm sensitive to the concern about gender bias, but I would argue that if we have similarly-sourced articles about male journalists we should be giving them a hard look with respect to

WP:N, rather than giving this one a free pass. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Rachel Brookes

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

The article currently has three sources: a Wordpress blog (

WP:BASIC
is met.

I'll add that I'm nominating this after it came up at ANI. Someone has been engaging in a year-long harassment campaign against the subject of the article on multiple on-line platforms, which has included numerous BLP-violating edits to our article (which I have revision deleted). I have protected it, but am bringing it here for discussion on whether or not we should actually keep it. If it is deleted, I would suggest salting the title to prevent abusive recreation; if it is kept, I'd like us to ensure that it is properly sourced, and stripped back so that the only assertions remaining are properly supported. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly AfD'd this myself when it appeared at ANI. There isn't notability demonstrated for her (yet). -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is inadequate and I don’t see the significant coverage in high-quality sources that's needed for a BLP. Plus, of course, Wikipedia should not enable the harassment of women. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That all we can write about her life is a list of where she has worked and that she’s interviewed some people demonstrates that there is no
significant coverage of her. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Yeah, that was clear - and thank you for the sterling work you've done with the edit summaries and so on on the the article. I was responding to the comment by someone else up there which gave the impression that it was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the sources in the article and created a source assessment table:
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
Women's Sport: How Rachel Brookes got into Formula One and what she loves about life in the paddock (GiveMeSport, 2020) Yes article is based on an interview, text mostly prefaces/rephrases quotes from subject ? "GiveMeSport (GMS) is a sport media outlet providing exclusive player and manager interviews, and providing fans with up-to-date features, match previews and match reviews." (About Us) ~ "Now she is one of the most recognisable women in F1." ? Unknown
I am proof that if you work hard and are very determined you will eventually be in the right place at the right time (Fast and Fearles, 2018) Yes article is based on an interview, text mostly prefaces/rephrases quotes from subject No A blog: "My name is Georgia and I started my ‘Fast and Fearless’ website in 2018." (About) No "Rachel Brookes is one of the country’s leading sports broadcasters, now regularly seen fronting Sky’s F1 coverage." No
Rachel Brookes on Life Covering F1 and Working For Sky Sports (SportsGrill, 2021) Yes article is based on an interview, with leading questions adding some content No A blog: "Sport Grill is the perfect blog for those wanting in depth articles and interviews across, Football, Motorsport and Tennis." (About) No "Having initially started out without a career plan other than an ambition to work in radio, Rachel has slowly but surely risen up the media ladder to become a member of Sky Sports F1 on-screen team." No
In conversation with Rachel Brookes (Motorsport Broadcasting, 2021) Yes article is based on an interview, begins with a 3-sentence overview of her Sky Formula 1 career No A blog: "The F1 Broadcasting Blog was set up in April 2012... I have never worked in motor sport, this website is an outlet for me to give my opinions." (About) No "Rachel Brookes has been an integral part of Sky’s Formula 1 coverage since 2013." No
Interviewing Bernie Ecclestone... (SkySports, 2017) No by Rachel Brookes Yes No by Rachel Brookes No
Rachel's Diary: Interviewing Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton after Baku mayhem (SkySports, 2017) No by Rachel Brookes Yes No by Rachel Brookes 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}}.
Based on the assessment above and my own research,
WP:GNG does not appear to be supported by an interview conducted by a source that may be reliable, three blog interviews, and two sources written by the subject, so my !vote is to Delete at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2021 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.