Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Fong (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Danielle Fong
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Much time has passed since the previous AfD discussion on this article, but it remains a stub. After the passage of time, it appears the basis for notability may have been ephemeral, and what we have is an article about a person who had a job. The journalistic coverage mentioned in the article and the previous AfD discussion do not appear to meet the criteria in WP:BASIC - she was profiled a couple times as a businessperson, and that's really all. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The passage of time since the first AfD has confirmed that notability has remained sub-par. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
 * The company that she founded failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
 * And? What does that have to do with notability policy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Claims of her notability are based on her founding the company. It failed. Founders of failed companies are not de facto notable WP:Corp, nor are those companies. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Going to run this for another week to gain some more insight. Especially with User:FalconK's comment at the end on a "keep" comment.
 * Delete - there is little enough evidence that Ms Fong did, indeed, go on to save the world... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not expire because all those sources still exist. Notability always increases monotonically because coverage can only make it go up, never down.  There is coverage now in books such as this and fresh coverage online which seems to be more negative in tone.  We should record failures as well as successes so that our coverage is balanced and realistic. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability, itself, is not temporary (see WP:NOTTEMPORARY) however the nominator has every right to bring it up for discussion and is not wrong to do so. The sources provided do still exist, as stated above. There are others when doing a WP:BEFORE search, some of which are provided here, as is the case with the book. Ultimately, the current condition of the article, being a stub, is immaterial to the notability of the subject. AfD is not article cleanup nor should an article be deleted simply because it is incomplete in the eyes of the nominator. Likewise, the success, or lack thereof, of the subjects endeavors does not take away from said notability, once gained. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:NEXIST and the following sources:, , (in French). I have picked three of the better ones, but there are plenty of sources out there to demonstrate meeting WP:BASIC. It doesn't matter if Fong ever saves the world, media coverage exists of her attempts and her company's failure. If this discussion leans delete, it should instead be redirected to LightSail Energy. Samsmachado (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The CBC source is about LightSail, not Fong. The Technology Review article is an interview of Fong about LightSail.  Le Point profiles her only in relation to the company.  FalconK (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to LightSail Energy, which is what the coverage and links above are really about. Reywas92Talk 20:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm borderline between saying keep or merge to LightSail Energy -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep As in my opinion, being on Forbes's 30 under 30 list is notable. Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced, Obviously passes GNG, not sure what the nom's standards are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm applying the principle of WP:1E here. Everything written about her is either about the company, or in relation to the company.  Also, the Forbes lists definitely do not imbue a person with notability; while I acknowledge this is controversial there are several cases where we have rejected the Forbes 30 under 30 lists as per se evidence of notability, especially in articles of people notable for only one thing in their career.  FalconK (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - per everything stated above, but this article needs to be cleaned up with some new sources and more current info. There are many notable sources specifically about this person. Jooojay (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Others above have said this above only for the sources to be about something else. Joojay, are there any specific sources you're relying on here?  FalconK (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the Keep votes here are cruel in effect, although I understand completely that they are not intended to be so. The subject's commercial enterprise LightSail Energy has been a failure and she has no notability unrelated to it. If the BLP is kept, it rubs the subject's nose in her failure and keeps the memory of it alive. I think it would be more charitable to delete the BLP and also LightSail Energy. In this way the subject will be left to make a clean start, at least so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2021 (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.