Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Smurthwaite


 * 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 SNOW Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Kate Smurthwaite

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The links are mainly the subject's blogs and appears to be self promotion or publicity. Considering the criteria for Notability in media and arts, she does not appear to be influential, has contributed no new theory or technique, does not contribute significantly to a well-known body of work, nor has she significant critical acclaim. EvidentAnalogy (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: the subject's notability is well-established in mainstream media per WP:ENT. Granted, the current article may rely too much on blogs and unsourced claims (I did some improvements on 22 January on that), but that's a long way to having it deleted for an alleged lack of notability. I'm also in favour of adding a "Criticism" section if the current page seems too promotional. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable female comic. All that is lacking are a couple of additional sources.--Tallard (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: no doubt about her notability. Additional sources should probably come soon --Nattes à chat (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs improvement, but if there was any doubt about her notability, the Goldsmiths incident should have tipped the balance irrevocably. --129.89.206.38 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep additional source:3 Feb 2015 The telegraph: Kate Smurthwaite: the comedian who confused no interest with no platform http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11386478/Kate-Smurthwaite-the-comedian-who-confused-no-interest-with-no-platform.html --LaMèreVeille (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the delete request is from an account which has no previous contributions. I think this deletion request is in bad faith and should be removed immediately. I am aware of the Wikipedia "good faith" policy, but to create an account with the sole intent of asking for a deletion is suspect. Could this account be a sockpuppet? --Tallard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted, I hadn't noticed that yet. I've guarded this page against many vandals, usually they edit from an IP address and have an obvious malicious intent by smearing the subject's reputation. This one may be the sneakiest yet in creating an account (likely an SPA) and almost correctly filing a formal deletion request, which still looks like a thinly veiled attack on the subject's reputation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Satisfies notability criteria. Years of being a standup comedian & her board membership of British humanist & feminist organisations is sufficient for notability in Britain.  I know Kate & I was connected to Goldsmiths College for 10 years. There has been a clique at Goldsmiths that have emerged in the last 2 years that seeks to silence free speech that they disagree with. The deletion request is coming from a malicious intent


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (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.