Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ese Stacey


 * 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. While there appears to have been a good effort at cleaning up some of the FIXIT problems with the article, consensus seems to be that notability has not been established. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ese Stacey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are multiple reasons I am putting this up for AfD. First, this biography is largely unreferenced, with only one or two sentences being supported by each reference. Second, the first sentence is kind of promotional, especially the "as a means of improving people's lives". Third, this article is not properly structured, although I think that this should have little impact on the decision to delete or not. Overall, this culminates in the fact that I do not regard this as an article that should appear in Wikipedia in its current state. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 23:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per the nomination - WP:SOAP, but also WP:TNT if notability can be somehow found. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  23:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In light of the cleanup....
 * I'm a newbie. This was my first article and was published accidentally before I had cleaned it up. It has been amended, taking on board useful suggestions as to how the article could be improved, including by complying with the house style and guidelines and improving the referencing. There are now almost two dozen references. I'm happy to be helped make this an even better piece about a notable black woman role model from a working class background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Maceo (talk • contribs) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * marginal keep I spent some time and pretty much completely re-did this, so the TNT is addressed. There was a bunch of unsourced content that just cannot be in WP per WP:BLP and WP:V. I think there is just enough left to keep, but it is a close call. I would not be surprised if others !vote delete. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Undecided Still needs clean up. Still primary research and inappropriate refs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A good job has been done cleaning this up and addressing the TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Maceo (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Antonio Maceo. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I reviewed the references and found nothing other than business listings and peripheral references. Nothing indicate that the subject is notable. Even the article does not suggest that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as per I think that the sources are still sketchy and even with this re-write it smells of WP:PROMO. The fact that it is worth mentioning that she is a Bupa physician and is thus referenced with a WP:PRIMARY source just shows that there is little to say. A couple of papers are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC, and the notablility of academics in general has been put into question recently on Wikipedia. A lack of independent and reliable sources still make me think this individual does not meet WP:GNG for now.  Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  21:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also did a wonderful job with the clean-up, but notability cannot be manufacured. It would be wonderful if every nice person who is a rolemodel could have this sort of recognition, but we have to remember that WP:GNG is clear on the notability guidelines.  Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. the cleanup may have dealt to some exgent with promotionalism, but it has not dealt with the lack of notability. The scientific work is negligible--her major paper has been cited only27 ties,a.c Google scholar. the books are either self published or published by an extremely minor publisher of review books for students . There's no other notability -- the BBC appearance is not sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 13 June 2017 (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.