Talk:Brooke de Lench

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... its previous AfD discussion reached conscensus that the article was notable, but needed to be rewritten. The previous version was considered WP:PROMO, it was badly written and a WP:TNT was proposed instead of the heavy editing that was needed. --Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 07:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, only one person really gave any indication of notability. The others either commented solely on the promotional tone (without mentioning notability) or explicitly stated that de Lench did not appear to be notable even after the promotional content was pruned. I also have to say that there is still an issue with promotional tones. Some of the sentences are loaded with PR buzzwords like this example: "She advocates a greater integration, equality and safety of child athletes in K-college sports." There has to be a more neutral way of writing this.
 * On a quick glance at sources I also note that there are some issues with this as well- IMDb cannot show notability. It is, at most, a routine database listing. A look at the next source down, this NYT article, is not much better. While the NYT is a RS, de Lench is not the sole focus of the article and she's only briefly quoted in relation to a broader topic. It's more of a trivial source than anything else. It does mention the PBS documentary, but what you need to assert here is how she's notable and why we should have an article on her as opposed to an article about the documentary or project. I haven't looked at all the sources, but offhand the first two aren't the strongest.
 * However that said, I'll try to see what I can do to help clean this up. Since the main focus of the prior AfD was its promotional nature, I don't think that it would be a bad idea to run this through a second AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've declined this since it is fundamentally different at this point. The promotional tone has been dealt with and I've weeded out a lot of the worst sources., the biggest issue with the sources that I removed is that many of them were primary or only briefly mentioned de Lynch or her organization. The thing about being quoted is that this doesn't automatically mean that someone is notable. If they're repeatedly quoted then it means that they're a reliable source and as such would be more likely to be notable, but it's not a guarantee. Now with primary sources the issue with these is that while they can back up minor details, they cannot show notability. Primary sources are essentially anything that is released by someone/something that is affiliated with de Lynch. For example, since she has worked with Harvard, sources from that college would be considered primary since it's in their best interest to write about things that they're involved with. What you need to show here is how she's notable outside of the organizations and people she's worked with, with coverage in in-depth and reliable sources. There are still issues with the sources I left on the article, so right now what you need are articles that focus predominantly on de Lynch and/or her organizations/initiatives. If the article is about injuries in youth sports as a whole (or any of the topics that she focuses on) and she is briefly mentioned, then that's not something to add to the article. There does seem to be a fairly strong assertion of notability here given the coverage, but you really need better sourcing here. What you need here are articles like this Boston Magazine article. It's a local source and those tend to be depreciated at AfD (since local sources will be more likely to cover local people), but it is a good example of what you need to find. However be careful of sneaky primary sources. For example, if the NFL is affiliated with MomsTeam (ie, they've funded the organization or partnered with them) then they'll be primary. Some places don't state this up front and while it's not done in an attempt to deliberately hide their affiliation, you do need to be careful of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep- the NFL has affiliated themselves with MomsTeam. I'm pointing this out not to be harsh against this, just that you will need to really find sources that are completely independent. While the first AfD focused a lot on the promotional tones (which are now gone), an article going in for a second AfD does have a handicap in that people may be more inclined to agree with the first AfD than they would if this had been the first time it was nominated. That's why sourcing needs to be extremely strong. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I was the only one that questioned notability as well as spamminess, I think this article probably shows they're just about notable- I won't be putting it up for AfD myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)