Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Rake


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Rake

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

For almost 10 years this has languished as a barely sourced, thinly-veiled resume. Obvious COI creator, and just the other day I removed an attempt to puff this up even more. Nothing of note here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (updated) there are profiles in the Guardian, the Daily Mail, BBC Radio 4 as well as trade press coverage.--Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I observe that that page came up blank when I followed your hyperlink. The Daily Mail appears to have blanked it for some reason.  Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The link works for me. Maybe a glitch? pburka (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Other Daily Mail pages are not blank. But that one is.  Something has been done to it by the Daily Mail.  Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Minor coverage in reliable sources. Once being profiled in The Guardian over 10 years is not sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage and therefore notability. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: in-depth coverage both in the Guardian and on the BBC is sufficient to source the a Wikipedia article and passes notability. --hroest 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply having some reliable sources and coverage does not inherently equate to notability. Remove this resume. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Simply having some reliable sources and coverage equates to notability. pburka (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All... two... of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment other sources include pg 84-88 of this book discussing Rake as theorist, discussion of her academic work here with Mary Daly. Their books is reviewed. Rake's role in third wave feminism in Britain mentioned. An article on the Fawcett Society mentioning her role there.Jahaza (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has been vastly improved by recent editing and no longer reads like an inappropriately promotional CV. Positions held, OBE, and coverage in Guardian etc. as above are sufficient for notability. Elemimele (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The guardian: There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. There is nothing promotional.
 * So what? A single 12 year old profile is news, not evidence of lasting notability. If anything, that being the best source is an argument against this resume page being worth anyone's bandwidth. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has held several prominent roles in the UK, particularly as chair of the Fawcett Society. In addition to the many sources mentioned above, Google Scholar finds 2 highly cited works (172,131) and several more moderately cited. There's another long Guardian article about the tea-cup storm over her remarks on marriage: . Another (3rd) review of her (coauthored) book.. Discussion of her LSE work in Financial Times, before she joined Fawcett.  Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 6 May 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.