Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Cummins


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Emily Cummins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear to be independently notable. She has promoted the work of others, and received some minor pats on the back for it, but so far as I can see, nothing rising to the level of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete  as attack page per WP:BLP. Also little notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment – The attacks appear to have been the work of one edit by an IP address user, so I removed them to fix the BLP issue. I have no significant opinion on the article subject's notability.  Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per Green Cardamom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Children learn from this website and because Emily did NOT invent the solar fridge but still took the money & credit for it, this article should be deleted. It encourages fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.108.128 (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This "speedy delete" was made by the same IP who altered the page with comments challenging Emily’s claim, which also prompted Xxanthippe's Speedy Delete vote above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. The subject has been profiled in sources for winning recognitions by bodies including a jury of Nobel winners in Oslo. She has long biographic piece in The Guardian, BBC Radio 4, The Telegraph, The Independent, BBC News, Daily Mail, Telegraph & Argus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look into the references they are no so impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC).
 * I agree. My nomination was not premised on the post-vandalism statements, but on the effort to build minor recognition into encyclopedic notability. bd2412  T 18:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Xxanthippe, for GNG purposes the sources are top-shelf - national/international audience, significant coverage. bd2412, see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing cleanup, I am proposing deletion. I don't believe that the achievements described in the sources add up to notability. They are, by and large, puff pieces. bd2412  T 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know what a "puff piece" is - they are not press releases if that's what you mean - but I do know that WP:GNG says: a person is notable when they receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and she has at least 7 in-depth articles from the world's best sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The multiple awards suggest notability. The place to dispute accuracy is on the talk page not by an AFD nomination.  I wopuld however be happier if the awards had their own articles.  There seem to be 1000s of awards and it is not easy to see which imply notability without.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. The sources are too feeble to give notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong keep - The sources cited in the article are numerous, reliable and coverage is significant. This is what constitutes notability. "Feebleness", "puff" or "non-impressiveness" doesn't factor into it. ~KvnG 14:26, 1 October 2013 (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.