Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Greenhall


 * 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 keep. Reminder to nominator: Notability is based on the existence of sources, not solely the state of sourcing in an article, and article content does not determine notability. Articles do not have to name the sources in order for its corresponding topic to be notable. Sources do not vanish because they were not named in the article. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Amelia_Greenhall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. cagliost (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you elaborate? Right now your rationale sounds like it's a claim about the present condition of the article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, if you can edit the article to make clear why she is notable, please do. cagliost (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Her claim to fame in "co-founding" a blog that is good at trying to engage in promotion, but has not gotten any indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy Keep - No valid deletion rationale given, as confirmed by 's response to my comment above. Notability is about the subject, not the present state of the article. That sources are not presently in the article doesn't matter. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * True but the fact that such sources are not mentioned in the article is evidence that they don't exist. Notability_(people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." cagliost (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears notable and incorrect to say no evidence of notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Lengthy profile in Fast Company and detailed tech media coverage of almost everything she's said over the past few years (see other links). Colapeninsula (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (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.