Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah James


 * 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) Esquivalience t 02:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Deborah James

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet standards in Notability (people) — person is a program director at a relatively obscure NGO, no sources *about* her other than brief bios on websites where she has a professional role. More importantly, edit history & talk page both reek of POV arguments & violations of WP:BLP. Super weird article. CircleAdrian (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

... and scores more related to CEPR, WTO, Huffington Post, and others. If we deleted articles for POV, there'd be no Wikipedia, and I see no BLP vios. (There has been COI editing and deletions of cited text, though ... ) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets notability.
 * 1) Seattle Times
 * 2) washington.edu
 * 3) Center for Public Integrity
 * 4) United Nations
 * 5) countercurrents.org
 * 6) International Institute for Sustainable Development
 * 7) Business Standard
 * 8) Inter Press Service
 * 9) El mundo
 * Adding:
 * El Universal (Caracas)
 * ''El Universal (Caracas)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, SandyGeorgia. Would also like to hear from folks who don't have history editing the page. CircleAdrian (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have two edits to the page: I restored correctly cited text, and when an editor who acknowledged a COI years ago removed it, I tagged the article and left.  I'd like to hear where the BLP vios you allege are.  I just looked at article edit history, and find it interesting that an SPA editing only in the area of her current employer (one of several), thinks adding the name of her former employer "maligns".  I guess there's something there I don't understand. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further information at Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp/Archive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources listed by SandyGeorgia. The groups she has worked for are not "obscure" and the second source now in the article is from the Center for Public Integrity, which won a Pulitzer Prize last year. That source gives her significant coverage. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. All but one of those sources itemized above are quote-mined passing-mention sound-bites, with the remaining one specifically about the subject comprising an interview by "a visiting graduate student" in PDF form on what appears to be a faculty-run activism blog. In short, the subject per se is not passing notability muster. Pax 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep since it meets notability according to multiple reliable sources. She was the head of multiple organizations which are also notable themselves. She was and still is active in works involving globalization and this article could possibly even be expanded.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 22:15, 9 March 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.