Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Vernon


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Vernon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO very little Google news coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails wp:bio. Only sources are specialized or have trivia mention.  Needs more sources to estabilsh notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't believe that Google News is now the hurdle that people have to overcome to be included in WP. It is but one indicator of notability.  The question is does it fail WP:BIO?  While Omarcheesboro asserts it, this editor provides no evidence of this.  Vernon is clearly notable enough to be on ABC PM, Australia's most respected current affairs program.  They don't interview just anyone.  She is obviously at the forefront of the maternity debate in Australia as evidenced by her being appointed to the Health Minister Nicola Roxon's high level Ministerial advisory group.  Surely if someone is after information about Vernon because of her appointment, WP is a good place to come.  I would have also thought that Vernon meets the WP:BIO requirement of: "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."  Even if it is such a narrow field as birth politics and midwifery.  She was apparently the lead author of the "National Maternity Action Plan" which has now led to the Australian Government to do the National Maternity Services Review.  I will attempt to find other references over the next week. Meerkate (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - User is contributor to article.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I support the comments above. How can Google be the definer of who is notable?  Having gone and read the Wikipedia notability criteria it is clear that Barbara Vernon is notable, even if not among the general population.  She is certainly well known in the Australian and New Zealand midwifery profession, as well as among Australian consumers.  To delete her on the basis of her google ranking seems spurious.  She has written in several major midwifery text books and is a prominent midwifery lobbyist as I think the references show.  What more is required?   Omarcheesboro states that the sources are specialized and thus aren't valuable.  This is silly.  She works in a specialist field.   She's not an actor or sports person.  Does this mean that to be notable you cannot be a specialist?  What other references are needed? SkeeterNZ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't mean to speak for the nom, but the google news mention was in addition to failing wp:bio. As far as specialized sources, considering one of the references listed is simply an interview where the subject has a few quotes, and is not given any sort of significant coverage, I suppose it makes me question the other sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:19, 4 December 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.