Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathe Perez


 * 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. Keep given substantial work being done on the article since the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Kathe Perez

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources found, those used in the article are closely related to the subject or trivial mentions. The company she works for etc. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender,  and Puerto Rico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added in some sources, and I think we are heading closer to meeting WP:GNG for this person. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to take into account recent work done on this article. Also, she doesn't appear to be an academic so I don't think that standard of notability applies here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's reason and this also feels like a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Wozal (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. International coverage in major media sources like Smithsonian and The Guardian makes a clear case to me for WP:GNG-level notability. There is still an issue with WP:BIO1E, and I would not object to retitling the article and making it about her app rather than about her, but there does not appear to be an existing article on it to merge into. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would not oppose a move. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2022 (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.