Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Rhea Debussy

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. With socking and brand new users expressing opinions on this, I have looked closely at the arguments to find the consensus. Much of the keep arguments are assertive or polemic what is policy based has been well challenged. The preponderance of the argument is with delete supported by source analysis that I don't really see as having been refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Rhea Debussy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dorian Rhea Debussy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The only biographical information comes from magazines published by universities Debussy has attended or worked at.

Other mention of this person in reliable sources are essentially "work related".

Sports Illustrated reported that this person quit their job, writing, "Dorian Rhea Debussy stepped down from their volunteer post at Division III’s LGBTQ One program."

Other sources are just "sound bite" quotations, because this person is Director of External Affairs with Equitas Health, and part of their job is to publish their company's opinion about issues.

Another source, The Buckeye Flame, is cited often, though this is a niche LGBTQ publication serving a small geographic area.

A thorough search yielded little to indicate this person meets our notability criteria, and almost no biographical information in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bibliographies, and Sexuality and gender. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree. What coverage there is is minimal and local, and the list of articles (look for it in the history: I removed it because it's basically resume information) does not suggest notability as an academic (look at this, for instance: this does not compare to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal), and so NPROF isn't met either. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--I:I disagree. I'm based in northern Ohio and the Buckeye Flame is a state-wide newspaper for the LGBT community. This makes it seem like it's a local or niche source, when it isn't, and it's a super trusted news source. (I'm also surprised they don't have a wiki page.)
    I think many of the concerns brought up in the deletion request really just need to be edited in the article, which it looks like others are starting to work on. There are definitely things to clean up here, but deletion seems hasty, as making edits seems to strike the better balance.
    Also as someone who is part of the LGBT community, this person is more well cited than the average trans person with a wiki page. It sort of feels like this request came out of frustration related to the concern about COI editing... 2600:1009:B028:BD24:0:40:BC9A:1001 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's the established editors like Magnolia677 who are frustrated; I think the two or three now-blocked users are frustrated, which caused Bradv to semi-protect the article. Whoever the closing administrator for this discussion is, they are likely seasoned enough to see if any comments came from blocked editors who evaded their block. As for the article, the problem is there are no in-depth sources from reliable secondary sources, and there really is no indication that the Buckeye Flame is of more than local relevance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Drmies, I'm not sure this matters, but I protected the page in response to a request by Magnolia677. – bradv 18:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also the one who reported all the socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politicalnooby/Archive, including several IPs from Ohio. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article also provides links to verifiable sources, such as GLAAD and Athlete Ally, which offer more information about the person. As for the "local" news sources, these are state-wide news outlets like the Columbus Dispatch and The Buckeye Flame. If these do not qualify as reliable sources, they should be dropped rather than deleting the article. This page should not be deleted; it must be given the opportunity to be edited correctly, seeing as past attempts have been made to do so inappropriately. MaxPG88 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a shame, isn't it MaxPG88, that so many edits are made inappropriately. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources 1–6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are non-independent Red XN. 11 (Columbus Disp. 1) and 18 (ABC) do not mention them Red XN. 15 (SI) is coverage of a press announcement (WP:NOTNEWS) that doesn't provide sufficient independent material on the subject themselves Red XN. 21 & 27 (NBC4), 22 (BF), 23 (10TV), 24 (Fox28), 25 (OCJ), 26 (Columbus Disp. 2), 28 (WDTN), and 29 (BF) just contain quotes from them in their function as an Equitas Health spokesperson Red XN. 31 (ACLU) is a primary interview Red XN. That leaves only the Buckeye Flame content (sources 7, 8 (non-RS guest commentary Red XN), 12 (non-substantive interview Red XN), 13 (ditto Red XN), 16 (passing mention Red XN), and 32 (passing mention Red XN)) which does not meet the "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in independent secondary reliable sources" requirements of GNG. Also, all independent coverage that isn't trivial is related to their resignation, so fails BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think this article meets the WP:BASIC criteria. While some of the secondary source articles in activism section are associated with her policy work, that’s kind of what many activists do. This could be addressed in editing. This is also in line with other activists who meet the WP:BASIC criteria for that same reason, so it’s not an option to apply a different standard here. The WP:BASIC policy also says that primary sources – as used in some instances here – can also support content {but should not contribute to the grounds of notability}. Also, I think this article meets the WP:ANYBIO policy. This person has been nominated for a NCAA inclusion award multiple times – first in 2019 and again in 2022 after a Google search. Their work on trans athletics also made a “widely recognized contribution” by criticizing the NCAA’s changed policy in 2022, which resulted in multiple media references from reliable secondary source articles. There were multiple other secondary source articles in the archive for the page, but it seems like someone deleted the sources when they deleted a sentence in that paragraph. Other secondary source articles include multiple national and international LGBT sources like PinkNews and Them, in addition to other national sources like Fox News. Regarding names, people are saying older articles, like the one from ABC News and the Dispatch, don’t mention this person. It looks like those articles DO, in fact, mention her, via her former name. {As a reminder, this is a trans person; the former name isn’t mentioned in the article, because of MOS:DEADNAME. However, those secondary source articles can still stand.} Info on that former name could have been determined with a quick search; here’s an article {not cited in the existing article} that shows her change in name: https://www.knoxpages.com/news/first-lgbtq-non-profit-organization-coming-to-knox-county/article_af7c501e-ebdc-11eb-8819-f7b34b40178c.html However, I do NOT think this article meets the WP:PROF category, because of the publications, and I do agree with some of the other folks here on that front. BUT and as mentioned above, I DO think the WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO policy apply here. After looking at the edit history, I think password protection should solve issues with disruptive editing, so the article should be allowed to undergo edits. As a potential solution for the closing administrator on this thread, I’d suggest 1) keeping the page {with password protection} and 2) tagging with Cleanup and/or More Citations Needed to get it fixed. But and since Wiki policy deems “deletion as a last resort”, I think the best overall solution for the closing editor on this thread would be as follows: 1) Revert this article back to the last clean version {02:55, 11 June 2023 seems like a viable option}, 2) Clean up the publications area given that WP:PROF does not apply and adjust as needed because of that, 3) Move this article back to Drafts for editing {that will still stop disruptive edits from IPs}, 4) Let folks work on it {if they’re actually interested, then they can proceed with an account & if they aren’t, then it will be auto-deleted in 6 months anyway}, and 5) Allow it to move through the article approval process anew {which will still ensure another administrator has eyes upon it and which will allow others some well deserved time away from the article}. For what it’s worth, I think it’s important to get this article right, since there are lots of anti-trans folks trying to erase trans people from physical and online spaces this pride month. Hoping folks like the idea of moving back to drafts for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketfiend (talk • contribs)
Basketfiend, I see you are a new editor, and wrote on your talk page, "Finally stopped editing from my own IP which I’ve also done for a long time to start an account. Mostly wanted to comment on a deletion thread since it’s a kinda interesting article." Then 10 minutes later, you commented here. So, the only reason you opened your account, was to vote in this discussion? You could have done that as an IP. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the AfC reviewer who accepted this article: please don't send this back to drafts for more editing. I accepted it when it was languishing at the back of the AfC queue. It had at that point already been declined twice and then totally rewritten, and no reviewer wanted to pick it up. Something that complicated or borderline should go to AfD for a wider consensus if necessary, and it has - the time for a decision either way is now, not at some unknown future date when the article is improved. If she isn't found to be notable, no amount of editing will make the article mainspace-ready. If she is found to be notable, and the only problem is the state of the article, please consider stubbing it instead of re-AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basketfiend, which sources from the history do you think contribute to GNG? I will say that the nomination for the NCAA Division III LGBTQ Administrator/Coach/Staff of the Year award is definitely, 100% not of the "well-known and significant award" calibre expected for ANYBIO (this is for things like Oscar nominees), and anyway internal awards (as an employee of the NCAA) are basically never accepted as sufficient (pinging Pumpkinspyce here too). However, if there is substantial IRS coverage of her in the article history that isn't related to her resignation, she might pass WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: see below on other thread Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the weakness of the sources, being mainly local. However, the number is high, so we are not talking about a single mention, and (barely) sufficient bio information is provided. The article is in good shape. I see no reason to delete at this time. Lamona (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona, the issue isn't that the sources are local, it's that they're mostly either trivial coverage or non-independent. None of the articles that merely quote her can contribute to notability at all, for example (otherwise we would have BASIC articles on every single organization spokesperson and local authority). Which secondary independent sources do you think are actually sufficient? I think source #7 might meet that criterion, and possibly SI, BUT they're both in the context of her resignation, so that would fail the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the question here, and we'd definitely need to look into other sources for this.
    I just did a search for other items, and I placed several (8 total) national and independent sources for the sports activism into the article. Sources now include the previous content (which was weak as noted above and in my original comment) and newly sourced articles from: Fox News (US based national news site), Swim Swam Magazine (international swimming magazine), them. (US based national online LGBT magazine owned by Conde Nast), PinkNews (UK based international LGBT news site), INTO (US based national LGBT online magazine), and others. I also found some smaller sources from a regional NPR station and Columbus Dispatch by googling her former name (which is mentioned in a source above), and I'll add those in a moment.
    With these additions, I think the article definitely meets the WP:BASIC guidelines. For WP:SUSTAINED, this article doesn't only have "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event," and there has been coverage outside of one event. Also, WP:NTEMP mentions that "the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline ... does not need to have ongoing coverage"; however, this person has had ongoing coverage which satisfies the requirement for sustained coverage in WP:SUSTAINED and not temporary notability in WP:NTEMP, so the criteria for WP:BASIC are met. So, no reason to delete right now. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To meet SUSTAINED, there must be SIGCOV that is not related to her resignation. All of the secondary independent sources you added are about her resignation. Fox News and The Daily Beast are also not acceptable sources for a BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it meets WP:BASIC and WP:SUSTAINED outside of coverage related to the resignation. I don't have further thoughts tbh, but happy that we're working through the process by sharing insights. I also placed a request for edit help on the article's talk page and on the living bios noticeboard, so that will hopefully generate fixes for the article and discussion here. (Time for me to move on though - not trying to get caught on just one larger project right now.) Pumpkinspyce (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pumpkinspyce, what is the coverage "outside" of that related to her resignation? You don't get over the requirement for SUSTAINED coverage by cobbling together passing mentions and NOTNEWS pieces, nor do those meet BASIC. I don't see a single article that even has SIGCOV at all, let alone one that has substantial coverage unrelated to her resignation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article should be kept per WP:ANYBIO. I worked to clean up neutrality issues. While some sources are weak, it meets coverage requirements. No reason to delete right now. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pumpkinspyce: I notice you are a new editor, having made just 26 edits, but you can only vote once. I have also restored the talk page messages you removed from the article, regarding how most of this article was probably written by one person, as well as the COI notice. Not sure why removing this was so important to such a new editor. I'm also not sure how all the low-quality sources you recently added to the article will make this person more notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment here @Magnolia677. New to using an account, but I've been editing Wiki since covid lockdown. (I've also done 65+ not just 25.) I took off that bolding and wasn't sure if I needed it for the comment to "count," but I appreciate you letting me know, so I could remove it.
Thanks for also letting me know about the talk page comments. I thought I was supposed to take those down if the issue was resolved, but I appreciate you catching that. Per WP:TEMPREMOVE, I removed the coi maintenance template, because I think I reasonably fixed the issues. (I'll ping on the talk page for more suggestions on why you want to keep it, but I think @Liz can help adjust when deletion discussion closes.)
RE: You saying this was "so important to a new editor" - my interests are on my userpage. Please take several seats before trying to imply I'm overly interested in any article. (I've been editing for other issues like that in other pages and nominating non-notable things for deletion too.) Please realize folks are just here to edit WITH you (NOT against you). Pumpkinspyce (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GNG seems met based on the sources in the article. The nom's argument appears to depend on excluding RS coverage that is "work related", which does not seem to have any basis in policy and indeed would seem quite counterproductive. Moreover, I am unable to locate any grounds in the above discussion for considering The Buckeye Flame to be unreliable or lacking in independence from the article subject. The claim above that this newspaper is of purely local "relevance" strongly suggests that this is yet another attempt to establish a standard of significance rather than sourceability for articles. Such a standard has no basis in policy and is indeed fundamentally inimical to our reason for being here. The intricacy of the above wikilawyering in favor of deletion, attempting to peel off one RS after another on increasingly tendentious grounds, speaks rather eloquently for itself: if such elaborate reasoning is required, the extraordinary remedy of deletion is almost certainly not warranted. (As a bit of a side note, it is nonsensical to say that an article "fails" ANYBIO, since WP:ANYBIO simply provides a brief list of extraordinary circumstances that may afford a presumption of notability to a biography even in the absence of GNG-compliant sourcing.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Top 3 notable things about Debussy are: Has had jobs (but what makes them notable?) Signed a letter? Gotten degrees? Everything significant is "things done as a college student". This should be information on Linkedin or a Resume. It doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. Denaar (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To elaborate further - look at this entry Richard_Bellis. Bellis has been nominated for 3 Emmys, he's was head of the Union for Television and Film Composers... and it's hard to find good sources for the article because he lived his life before the internet. That's what WP:ANYBIO is about - making some room for people who are clearly notable in what they've done, even if we can't immediately find sources for them.
    Debussy, in contrast, is currently most famous for resigning from a volunteer position in college. The reason we have lots of small references for Debussy is she went to college during a time where everything is online - that doesn't make her notable. Denaar (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree with @Visviva about WP:GNG, since presumption, significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, and independent sources are met. They mentioned that this seems like an" attempt to establish a standard of significance rather than sourceability for articles," which is important to consider. RE: the argument from @Denaar: 1) Debussy did these things AFTER college; she worked at a college starting in '18, which is I think where your confusion is. Basically, your argument that she had significant "things done as a college student" isn't valid; these sources are all after that & 2) There are more than just local sources, including Swim Swam Magazine (international swimming magazine), them. (US based national online LGBT magazine owned by Conde Nast), PinkNews (UK based international LGBT news site), INTO (US based national LGBT online magazine), ABC News (US based national news source), GA Voice (Southern state-wide LGBT news source) Fox News (US based national news source though lower reliability on wiki scale), Sports Illustrated (US based international news source), OutSports (US based national sports source). Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a news story is covered and repeated in 100 stories, and then... it isn't covered again and reanalyzed and continued to be discussed, it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:Event. So far, I see an event that got a lot of mentions in many sources, but wouldn't count as notable on it's own.
    Where is the significant, in depth coverage of Debussy in multiple sources? Something that's beyond her name in an article, or a few sentences mentioning her, but where she's the topic of the article?
    The only place she is the topic of the article is when she resigned. And that's not a notable event, despite all the coverage, because it was a "one and done" mention in the news. Denaar (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized... when you say "presumption, significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, and independent sources"... you're under the mistaken idea that this isn't describing one source having all these features. "Significant coverage in a reliable, secondary, intendent source" - more than one - is the requirement. This topic doesn't meet that criteria. Primary sources never give notability - and the links to things like "instagram" - primary sources, not secondary -isn't helping here. The in depth coverage doesn't meet "independent". Denaar (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I got tagged back in here, I'll take the liberty of breaking my own "one and done" rule by commenting here again. The first point that jumps out at me from the recent discussion is that what makes her notable already rests on a mistaken equation of notability and significance. Notability is not, has never been, and as long as anything that can rightfully be called Wikipedia endures will never be, a question of significance. It is about whether a stand-alone article should exist, which in the most general case is about sources. On that note, the GNG expressly does not require that the article subject be the topic of the [source] article. In fact, the guideline expressly states that the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Here again I can't quite shake the feeling that notability is being used as a stalking horse for significance. Finally, playing notability whack-a-mole by applying the notability criterion for events to one event within a biography is expressly excluded by WP:N, specifically WP:NNC. -- Visviva (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See: WP:SINGLEEVENT WP:PSEUDO - "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event... The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."
    Denaar (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found this from the academic deletion sorting list, but WP:PROF does not seem to be in play; instead it is a case for WP:GNG, so we need multiple sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. Sources from employers and former schools do not count as independent. In addition, per WP:BIO1E, we need the subject to be notable for more than one thing; it would be ok to have a single in-depth reliable independent source about each of two things, but multiple sources that are all about the same thing are not good enough. The refbombing of the current version of the article with low-quality sources has made the good sources hard to find among all the others. There do exist in-depth reliable and independent sources for one thing, the resignation in early 2022, among which Sports Illustrated clearly meets all criteria. But almost all of the sources that are not about that one thing appear to be non-independent (from employers or former schools), or not in depth (only quoting or briefly mentioning Debussy rather than having in-depth content about her). That is true even if one includes the several sources that refer to Debussy by her deadname, which we cannot use without clarifying in our article why those sources are relevant to Debussy. Of the remaining sources, the only two that look at all promising to me are the last two: one stating the existence of a profile by the ACLU, but with a link target page listing many videos and not mentioning Debussy, and another about some local award given to Debussy, but with no depth of coverage. If there are better sources (maybe a transcript of the relevant ACLU video from which we could judge depth of coverage without having to go through many other irrelevant videos) I might be willing to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 49 sources! And the ones I looked at (I admit that I didn't look at all 49, my eyes started glazing over) are non trivial. I can respect the reasoning of the people who say that some of those sources
    • aren't independent - but they're school papers, which just isn't the same thing as a corporate paper writing about an employee, there are plenty of traditions of school papers being quite critical of faculty
    • other school papers seem even more independent, for example, https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/brave-space-timothy-bussey-and-christine-sylvester/ is reasonably indepth and was published when the subject was working for a different school, no longer associated with the school except as an alumnus
    • or don't cover a huge area - but Ohio is a state of 11 million, similar to Belgium, twice that of of Holland, surely we'd accept a national newspaper from either of those
    • or are about one event - but that one event got coverage from national, independent sources that would meet the above two issues
    • or are mainly of interest to the LGBT community - but if they were trade magazines or of interest to another community, say, politicians, or video gamers, or computer programmers, we'd accept them
The main thing is that there are so many non-trivial sources, and since each one needs a different rationale to reject it, after a certain point you have to say "come on now", it's time for WP:IAR. It's pretty clear that "the world" - many different parts of "the world" - know a fair bit indepth about the subject, and as Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of the world's knowledge, we are not improving the Wikipedia by excluding this knowledge. --GRuban (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you referred to, published in Debussy's university newspaper, is a promotional puff-piece: "hey, look how successful one of our former graduates is!" It even quotes Debussy's dissertation advisor, who is still employed by the university. This source is hardly independent of the subject, as required by WP:REPUTABLE. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GRuban, a large number of the sources do not mention her at all (7), are passing mentions (3), or are just quotes/interviews from her (13 refs). Note that all but one of those refs in the last group are quoting her as a spokesperson for an organization she is in and do not provide any independent coverage. The one that doesn't is a straight video submission from her so is primary and non-independent.
  • School papers are never independent of people affiliated with the school, including alumni.[1] Non-independent media never count towards notability. That eliminates another 16 refs.
  • All 10 of the remaining refs are news pieces on her resignation. The fact that she has only been covered in the context of one event by (mostly primary) contemporaneous newspaper articles is precisely why we have BLP1E and NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond the impressive refbombing, I don't see enough significant secondary coverage beyond their resignation, which in itself was not a mayor event and was more a "minor news of the day". The page should had never been moved to the main space. Cavarrone 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the article's history, you will see that I carefully removed many of the frivolous and duplicate references, in the hope that what was left might support this person's notability. It was only when I felt the remaining reliable source still did not support notability, that I nominated the article for deletion. It was unfortunate to see a new editor refbomb the article after it was nominated for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any reliable secondary sources here that are mainly about her, and for notability, you need at least a handful of those. What we have is sourcing that reliably, but merely, shows she exists. That isn't enough.OsFish (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I don't want to see another LGBT person erased from Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part-time Lecturer, Equitas Health employee, withdrew from NCAA, etc., are all interesting but she's not notable by secondary independent coverage. Easily fails academic criteria, closest for DEI position, but she wasn't the lead in that position, obscure college, etc. We should spend this discussion time making and improving other LGBT subjects instead. What makes her notable above others? If this were included, we'd have precedent to include a billion other sub-notable biographies. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2023 (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/Dorian_Rhea_Debussy&oldid=1164184139"