Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann McGuiness


 * 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 and close per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ann McGuiness

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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. IndyNotes (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * IndyNotes: This is nuts! I am not even ready writing the article and you want to delete! NYT and Lancet obits are enough to justify- or is this a politically motivated editing of Wikipedia  deletion request ??? Leaving a welcome to WP note on my talkpage is ridiculous too.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted on your talk page, the alert welcoming you is automatically delivered via the Page Curation tool. There is no NYT obituary listed at the time of review, merely an obituary from the funeral home and The Lancet. If you have additional support for notability, you are welcome to provide it, but I recommend that you prepare articles meeting Wikipedia guidelines prior to publication and not publish articles in draft form.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from casting aspersions relating to 's motivations for bringing this to AfD. It's quite clear that they didn't see the NYT obit before bringing this here and that this was done in good faith, and even so the notability is borderline. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Politics,  and Sexuality and gender. Skynxnex (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, the New York Times obituary is not currently in the article. It can be found here. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And why do you write this here ? You are welcome to assist in the construction of the article by editing it as well, as the Under construction sign on the article suggests... Wuerzele (talk)0:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I wrote this here because this is the proper place to do so. Since you are the original author, I thought that you might like to add the missing reference that you mentioned. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment She is also honored in the Congressional Record on September 22, 2022. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfDing an article where the article already shows a full obituary in The Lancet seems unhelpful; the likelihood of there being no other coverage at all is zero., you would be well advised to construct your articles in your userspace or draftspace and only move them into mainspace when there are at least two or three decent sources present. It's not obligatory, but the New Page Patrol is required to seek multiple sources, and everyone's time ends up being wasted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with, the in-depth obituaries from The Lancet, Congressional Record, and The New York Times meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC.  VickKiang  (talk)  03:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as above + WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: has multiple sources that meet WP:GNG. –– FormalDude  (talk)  09:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Found three obits. More than enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There are multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage here, including the aforementioned obituaries. The obituary in The Congressional Record is a bit odd to use to claim notability, as any single congressperson can simply talk and those words go into the congressional record; the CR is a reliable source in a primary context (i.e. for what was said/entered) but it isn't exactly an RS in terms of its application to any context outside of what was said in Congress (or entered into the record by motion). In this case, it's clear that the obit is just a statement put out by the office of Joseph David Courtney, and I don't think that we consider the equivalent of press releases by a random congressman's office to be a reliable source. But the bylined obits in NYT and The Lancet are enough to just barely scrape by WP:NBASIC. She doesn't appear to be notable only for dying, so this isn't a WP:BIO1E situation. However, I am genuinely not able to find more independent coverage of her than those two obituaries, so I agree that this is borderline. Is there any other SIGCOV of her that exists? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the NYT and Lancet obits about her and not her death meet NBASIC as mentioned. There's also tangential evidence given by the amount that those obits have been reposted/spread, although that is just circumstantial evidence. I agree it's a bit surprising that there isn't much other coverage of her but my guess it's because she mostly worked behind the scenes in a way that people didn't write about but after her passing, more people felt comfortable to talk about her now to the NYT/etc. Skynxnex (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's WP:SNOWing. pburka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus that the subject is a WP:GNG pass based on significant coverage in WP:RS-based sourcing. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2022 (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.