Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Allison


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aimee Allison

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced biography of a living person, questionable notability, likely promotional. Dougie WII (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources in the Google news archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have to say, I had no problem finding numerous non-trival mentions of her in the Oakland Tribune and other sites, then this editorial sealed the deal. Xymmax (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The "editorial" you cite is attributed to: "Ben Wyskida is a writer and activist living in San Francisco. He is a volunteer with the Aimee Allison campaign, obviously, Go to www.aimeeallison.org. " Hardly an independent source IMO. That's the problem with this, there are plenty of hits but if you dig deeper most seem to be from her organization or closely affiliated activist groups. - Dougie WII (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree about editorials in general not being reliable sources, I was trying to be cute with the whole "Why Aimee Allison Matters" title. Still, leaving the editorial aside, you don't find the newspaper coverage nontrivial? Looking over my hits, I guess some of the problem is that a number of these newspapers require payment for their stories, while I can view them on Nexis. There's a certain element of her being a "go-to" person for a certain kind of quote, but I can actually locate a small story about in the San Francisco Chronicle from way back in 1991 about her applying to be a conscientious objector . If you have Nexis access, the story is here. She clearly is one of these people who knows how to get her name in the paper, but does appear to have nontrivial mention in multiple sources. Xymmax (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that mentions in the Oakland Tribune provide notability. She ran, unsuccessfully, for City Council in Oakland. That guarantees some coverage in the Oakland Tribune. If she had won, or if her campaign had sparked interest outside the Bay Area (or even across the Bay Area), then I'd consider that she might be notable. But being the friend of a reporter and thus getting "woman in the street" quotes doesn't create notabililty. Heck, the woman she lost to doesn't have an article here. Argyriou (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless significant independent reliable sources are added to the article. I know who she is, but that's because I lived in Oakland until I escaped a year ago. She's locally notable, but there is no support for any of the assertions made in the article. Argyriou (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please recall that if the subject is notable is what matters, not the article quality. The newspaper links provided above appear to be enough, but I honestly don't have an opinion here.  Hobit (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/Suggestion There's been no attempt to improve the page in the almost two weeks this has been in AfD, so I still suggest it be deleted but with no bias against recreation with better sources and clearly established notability. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.