Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Tomlinson

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 merge to Milifandom. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Tomlinson

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

Person that is not notable past one event that happened two years ago. The article reads mostly as a CV past outside of this. Propose to redirect to Milifandom, the majority of the non-CV content of the article. Inops (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggestion by the nom that Tomlinson is only notable for one event is completely false. She has repeatedly received independent, in-depth media coverage separate to the Milifandom. Tomlinson therefore meets WP:GNG. She has written for national newspapers and appeared on national television. She has continued to receive coverage completely independent of the 2015 general election. As recently as late last year she was appearing in reliable sources. The Observer listen Tomlinson as one of their "Faces of 2015" which published a lengthy interview with her. She appears in several books such as Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election and Political Marketing and the 2015 UK General Election amongst others. AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references in the articles are either (1) discussions of "Milifandom" before or immediately after the election or (2) retrospectives in the form of interviews on "Milifandom" -- none of these establish Tomlinson as notable outside of the event. That Huffington Post reference might contend as an indication of notability, given its removal from the event, if it was more than a one off. As far as I can see, it isn't. --Inops (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. In September 2015 Tomlinson was writing for the Daily Mirror. She has been interviewed by Channel Four News on an unrelated issues. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have articles on other guest web journalists in the Mirror, or other guests on Channel 4 programmes, because of where they appeared? I don't see why this can't just be added as a sentence in the Milifandom article. --Inops (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Milifandom. Seems like ONEEVENT problem is valid. All the coverage of her - and I grant, it is reliable and in-depth otherwise - is from September of 2015, when Milifandom movement gained visibility, and she, as a media-eye-catching high profile activist/founder, got profiled. But that is still ONEVENT/WP:TOOSOON. I suggest a merge to Milifandom where a section on the founders/notable activists would not be out-of-place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milifandom because we really only have that one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG guideline. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milifandom. Entries on every person that has a ONEEVENT on any media platform is not scalable for Wikipedia and does not provide meaningful historical data; detailed data concerning persons with little historic significance is not the purpose of Wikipedia, that is the purpose of Facebook. The overall impact of the ONEEVENT will most likely be limited to granting Milifandom a relatively small increase in media exposure for a short while in 2015. If the event’s impact is found to be greater than this, a new article can always be created detailing the event. 07:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Suggest the editors above read WP:NOTAVOTE. The WP:BLP1E issue has been addressed and rejected. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. You may have rejected it, but the other editors and I haven't. Tomlinson is not notable enough outside of her connection to Milifandom to have an article. --Inops (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read WP:BLP1E. BLP1E only applies if all of the following criteria are met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. & 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Those criteria simply are not met. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Milifandom. If her political career ever takes off beyond what is basically a single event then it can always be recreated. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability proved per above. This fails WP:BLP1E, number 3. It is implausible to suggest that Tomlinson's role in the Millifandom event was non substantial or well documented. How is it that she still writes and appears on TV, but this is not well documented or substantial. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on TV is not a notability claim in and of itself, and neither is writing content for newspapers. A person has to be the subject of media coverage, not a soundbite giver in or the author of coverage of other things, for that "coverage" to count toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being on TV being interviewed is being the subject of media coverage. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. If she's talking about herself, then she's making self-published claims — and if she's talking about other things besides herself, then the thing she's talking about, not her, is the subject of that piece. Only one type of coverage is acceptable for demonstrating notability: coverage in which a third party, not herself, is writing or speaking about her in the third person. An interview can only be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been met by stronger sourcing, and cannot count toward the initial meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2017 (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.