Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra de Blas


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexandra de Blas

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only 1 article links to this. A mere 2 google news hits. and google books hits are 1 line mentions. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep A low controversy. long career, respected environmental journalist who used to host a radio show on a national radio broadcaster. My Google search returned 19,000 hits. MNewnham (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, but you emphasized 2 hits as if this person was invisible on the internet which is clearly not the case. My other points are much more relevant though. MNewnham (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 google news hits. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * do you have sources that are WP:SIGCOV and establish notability? LibStar (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Environment,  and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: There are multiple issues. Wikipedia is not a venue for resumes. As a BLP sourcing requirements are more stringent. Maybe I am location biased hamstrung but couldn't find sources that are not resume related. At 19,000 hits there would certainly appear to be enough to cite sources on the article that would advance notability. I didn't get that return. Wikipedia demands a "high degree of sensitivity" on BLP's and the second lead paragraph of WP:BLP repeats WP:BURDEN. This feels like a person being elevated to notability while lacking sources that actually advance notability. Most people in the world would love a Wikipedia article so much they will pay to have one created. Lack of sources means the entire lead section would need to be removed as I must have missed sourced coverage in the article body so that the lead would be a "summary". The lack of such sources does indicate the article Fails WP:JOURNALIST. What we usually see is the author, or another editor wishing the article kept, providing some sources on the article that we refer to a HEY. The difference between a resume (job listing) and a Biography: Detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of their life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality. The article lacks significant and independent coverage in reliable sources for a BLP. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - for whoever reviews this, https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=alexandra%20de%20blas is interesting to see, regardless of whatever the comments above might infer, or whichever direction... JarrahTree 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Reply : To u|JarrahTree. I am surmising you are showing a Trove "search engine" using Alexandra de Blas but I cannot read the old pages shown and I would have to see if I have access. Also I see a key word of "Alexandra" being offered but not "Alexandra de Blas". However, a "search engine", at this point, does not help to show me anything particular to, from, or about the subject to advance notability and this is a BLP. If the subject did have articles listed in Trove, meaning there might be original articles somewhere, this might offer evidence of such notability. I saw that three of the authors articles were deleted as well, as was one that was a draft. If I am not mistaken all of them were because of sourcing, so to repeat, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to stem notability concerns. I have been trying to add sources I find to some of the authors articles because apparently it is almost a year since the last edit (March 3, 2023) so I found no help in the source. Maybe someone would have better luck -- Otr500 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have no idea why you cannot access trove: https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/484872 - or indeed call it strange names: Trove is an online aggregator - and should be utilised in afds involving Australian subjects, as google based systems do not necessarily collect aspects of Australian material JarrahTree 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like and  I was unable to find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I checked WP:LIBRARY (EBSCOhost, ProQuest, newspapers.com) and reviewed the sources already in the article. The best source is the one from the introduction to Green Power, which talks about the attempted suppression of her thesis, but on its own it's not enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, or WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - I added a few sources to the article, and have searched for secondary coverage of her work to help support WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC notability; there appears to have been some news coverage of her early academic work, both of the initial attempted suppression and eventual publication, but how or whether this was connected to the subsequent Mount Lyell Remediation and Research and Demonstration Program is not clear from sources I found or could access. I also found her Earthbeat work cited in various sources on GBooks, but have not found commentary or reviews in reliable sources about this work. As to her later work, I found a speaker bio and her website. I was not able to verify awards to help add context to the article and do not think these are sufficiently notable critical recognition to support notability on their own. Overall, to develop a neutral and balanced encyclopedia article according to the notability guidelines, we need more sustained, independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2024 (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.