Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Palmer


 * 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 verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dominique Palmer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not every 21-year-old “climate justice activist” belongs in an encyclopedia. Until there’s in-depth coverage, until there’s more than press releases from Greenpeace and screenshots from the subject’s Instagram profile, the case for inclusion isn’t convincing. - Biruitorul Talk 13:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - was deprodded with the rationale that it had already been prodded once, which is incorrect. It had been speedied, not prodded. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 16:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, ample sourcing and created as part of the WikiProject Women in Red initiative to try and improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia.NemesisAT (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate how, specifically, the article satisfies WP:BASIC? — Biruitorul Talk 21:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BASIC states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and in the article, there appears to be "more than press releases from Greenpeace and screenshots from the subject’s Instagram profile", e.g. New York Times 2020, 3 grafs, with her background as a Fridays for Future organizer in Britain and context, The Guardian 2021, 2 grafs, with background and context, The Guardian 2020, 3 grafs, with background and context, 7 UK Climate Activists Fighting For Marginalised Communities (Bustle, 2021, she is one of the featured activists), BBC3, 2021, 5-graf focus on her statements, with background and context, so WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BASIC notability appears to have support from the sources currently in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC and expand the article, because in addition to the sources above and others in the article, there is The Big Issue 2021, The Irish Times 2021, Refinery29 2020, and she is one of 12 Fridays For Future organizers who signed open letters, one published by Reuters 2021, and another published by Vice 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Vague claim to notoriety, entirely dependent on that of another activist. 21:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC -- plenty of sources, and appears to be high visibility in the climate movement in the UK, Sadads (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as WP:BASIC is satisfied here, as there are in fact many sources other than Greenpeace..Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:30, 30 July 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.