Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Dalmayne


 * 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 delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Emma Dalmayne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First, I think it is clear from the edit history that three of the main contributors to this page have a COI, User:Winchswan (no significant edits outside of creating the article), User:Emma Dalmayne (same name as the article) and User:2a00:23c5:a89e:7200:ed98:f7e0:4663:3d41 (identified as subject of article in an edit description.)

Now for content: outside of the many claims made in the article, here is what we can see if we look at the sources:
 * Medium: a blog.
 * Various tweets: Falls under WP:SOCIALMEDIA and is not sufficient to confer notability, also not independent per WP:GNG.
 * Articles about MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution): These are articles about MMS, not about Ms. Dalmayne. She is quoted, yes, but the articles are not about her, and that does not confer notability.
 * Links to sites affiliated with Ms. Dalmayne (autisticinclusivemeets.org, autisticate.com, etc.) - WP:NOTINHERITED, and not independent of the subject per WP:GNG.
 * A link to a book she wrote on an online bookstore: does not confer notability.
 * Nominated for an award A notable award with a wikipedia article, but Ms. Dalmayne did not win; in addition this article is asking people to vote for her, and most of the article was written by her.
 * Some links to conferences she attended and participated in, such as this, but that doesn't confer notability per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG.

After that - there's nothing left. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG BonkHindrance (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the COI is a problem but not related to the task here, which is assessing notability. I see many mentions in news articles since at least 2016. She has a clearly established reputation as an autism campaigner/advocate via these sources. Meets GNG, although not in a big way. Note that I came here after a COIN post requesting assistance with the article, not the AFD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Her name appears in articles as a source, giving comments, but I don't find any major articles about her. There was some kind of incident where she accused a man of accosting her children or something but this would fall under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't give her notability personally. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any evidence of notability here. ⌚️ (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Only two mainstream sources with the rest seemingly biased towards the subject and therefore not independent. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3123:2F7A:A4DD:3593 (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I was surprised to see that this made it through AfC. The only independent RS here is the Guardian piece and while it has some coverage of her, it's mainly about the MMS stuff, with little substantive biographical info on Dalmayne. The rest, as OP pointed out, are affiliated sources or blogs/social media posts. She does get quoted in a few news articles but this does not contribute to notability; per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. We can't write a BLP based on a couple instances of "Emma Dalmayne, an autism rights advocate, said..." SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been working with the user on the COI noticeboard for this this article. The creator, AfD passer, and edits have been a majority of bias and spam containing the users email link. A connected Ip and the person who the article is based on has been responsible for that. Not suitable per the GNG. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:30, 19 February 2020 (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.