From 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Alison Green

Alison Green (  | 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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. No coverage. scope_creep Talk 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no coverage in reliable sources to support a redirect. scope_creep Talk 13:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Scope creep I don't understand what you mean by no SIGCOV. From running BEFORE, there are sources that qualifies SIGCOV, rather my major concern was that it's not an entry for a stand alone article. See [1] by The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) and [2] from Australian Financial Review. Redirect is the best case here, so far we can verify she is the CEO and co-founder. I probably believe there can be notability in the future but not now! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The first link is a pure PR and is not a reference and the 2nd one is a WP:SPS source as its interview. There is no valid secondary sources that proves this person is notable per long standing consensus. Merely appearing in the news doesn't make you notable. That is the reason the article has been Afd three times. Its non-notable with no coverage. None. The second one is also by "Hannah Tattersall Contributor". That is PR as well. It is a composite style article that you see all the time with business accelelator news of this type. Its spin for spins sake. It is all ersatz junk. Its all WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. scope_creep Talk 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I have mentioned this multiple times in my previous AfD discussions: the source from the 'Australian Financial Review' was authored by a contributor, not staff; hence, it should be treated as a self-published source. GSS💬 03:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
While I propose redirecting is because the target article has something to say about the current bearer of the is article. I am either way not proposing that "she" is notable, but with this primary source whatsoever, can clarify that she "has been, or was, or founded the publishing press." That should be the major alternative to this deletion. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree with nominator and others voting delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources and no justification for a redirection. TarnishedPath talk 11:15, 11 April 2024 (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.