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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Cecilia Harvey

Cecilia Harvey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Created by undisclosed paid editor, lacks in-depth news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya ( talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources for her research into queen bee syndrome, but they are all based around interviews (which don't count toward notability). My question is, does the extent to which they're based around interviews overwhelmingly count them as only an interview and not count toward notability, or does the independent prose interspersed with the interview material count them toward notability? - Lopifalko ( talk) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment "Undisclosed paid editor"? On what basis? No-one has suggested it on the editor's talk page, or asked whether they have a WP:COI. It's not a phrase to be thrown around lightly. Yes, it's this editor's only contribution, they worked on it in their sandbox and then copied that into a new article, but that doesn't prove they are paid editor. Ask them about COI first? And leave them a welcoming template: WP:AGF. Pam D 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply

PamD, I am not sure if I am smart enough. But it is 1,000% paid editing from a big sock farm. It was a proper planned perfect execution, the biggest hint I got with the photo, a private, nice high quality photo uploaded on commons from flickr. So first, a new flickr account created in October 2019, Photo was uploaded on flickr on 15 Oct, uploaded on commons on 17 Oct, page editing started on sandbox from 10 Oct, made over 10 edits, got auto confirmed account and moved to mainspace on 21 October with no errors. Who can do this without knowing everything about Wikipedia, a new editor or someone who is super-expert in it? If you want MER-C can elaborate it even better, who is best among all admins in this. Meeanaya ( talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources Pass WP:GNG as per WP:NEXIST.-- Wakowako ( talk) 11:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Wakowako, can you please share 3-4 in-depth news articles about her that you are talking about? Just check that the news articles you share are not just mere mentions. Meeanaya ( talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, as they can represent "the world at large" taking notice of a person. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment hello Meeanaya, fyi, i haven't shared articles. But those references clearly counts WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent reliable sources thus deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. -- Wakowako ( talk) 05:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment If she is notable for anything then it appears to me that it is only for her research into queen bee syndrome, which has numerous articles from reliable sources. However the degree to which those articles are interviews, or focus on her paper rather than on her, makes this difficult for me to judge her notability based on sourcing. - Lopifalko ( talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (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.