Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Grasby

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Grasby

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

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

PROD declined "with the subject has received considerable coverage in reputable online sources and is especially notable as the first woman WOFF-AF" but there is no RS coverage presented and the article does not claim she is the first female WOFF-AF (whatever that is). The award of a Medal of the Order of Australia alone (the lowest category of the award and one with no quota) would appear not to compensate for an otherwise complete failure of WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- See WOFF-AF for role. Still thinking about my !vote. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a basic Google search yields considerable coverage in reliable sources (including, but certainly not limited to, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) and a cursory read of the existing article explains "WOFF-AF". That is, Warrant Officer of the Air Force – the most senior enlisted member of the Royal Australian Air Force and the senior enlisted advisor to the Chief of Air Force. The role of WOFF-AF is notable in itself, but Grasby's appointment as the first woman to serve in the role also received reliable, independent coverage (including [7] and [8]). Grasby easily satisfies WP:GNG. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1-5 are press-releases or primary government sources. The rest are from iffy websites, I'd not consider any of them useful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 2 and 4 are government sources. Source 1 is the web version of a chapter published in an academic book, Niche Wars, by ANU Press. Source 3 is from a quasi-think tank with military affiliations, 5 is an article from The Canberra Times, 6 is the newsletter of a notable veterans' association, 7 is an article published in The Mandarin, and 8 is from a news outlet that publishes on military-related topics. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, there is enough coverage to indicate notability. - Indefensible (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The role of WOFF is in of itself not grounds for notability. Note the list of people who have held this role are not bluelinks - and there is nothing in WP:GNG to tell us that WOFF = notable. Given the role is not notable, the first female to hold the role is equally not notable. Are there other grounds for notability? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No discussions in RS, only sourced to press-releases or gov't websites. Not meeting notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only mention of her in the news I could find, and she's mentioned in passing [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in multiple RS so satisfies WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not cut and dried. Re sources provided by Abraham, B.S.: 1-4 & 6 are press-releases or gov't websites; 5 is a Canberra Times reference, however this is a quote from Grasby so not a strong platform for notability; 8 is ‘Contact’ a self described as a blog, but not necessarily disqualified because of that - WP:N; 7 The Mandarin is possibly the strongest reference going toward notability. When combining all, coverage possiby gets over the bar of WP:GNG; when combined with notability of WOFF-AF per se, my inclination is to Keep.Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify, only sources 2 and 4 above are government websites. Source 1 is the web version of a chapter published in an academic book, Niche Wars, by ANU Press. Source 3 is an interview with a quasi-think tank that has military affiliations, and 6 is the newsletter of a notable veterans' association. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abraham BS. Deus et lex (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have enough coverage in a variety of sources. The references above to "Source 1" as a chapter of Niche Wars re confusing as the current Ref 1 "no. 22" doesn't look like that, while Ref 7, Boulton, is clearly from the book, but that's what happens with constant improvement of an article by addition of new refs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]
Keep RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has widespread coverage in RS, per Abraham BS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. SNOW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 12 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.