Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katy Deacon


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Katy Deacon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a public figure and doesn't meet any notability guideline. Having won several non-notable awards such as "The IET Young Woman Engineer of the Year" doesn't make her notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no where near enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails NBIO and GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article initially did not have enough sources but upon searching for her name, she has been widely covered in many newspapers and notable places including a profile in The Independent for winning the Institution of Engineering and Technology Young Woman Engineer of the Year award in 2007. She's been noted as an influential woman in engineering in several newspapers as well as BBC News. She has also won significant engineering awards from the Women's Engineering Society and the NICEIC. I have fixed up the article and added those citations. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as the article has been improved by the addition of extra reliable sources, the BBC reference is good sig cov, now passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. not yet notable. awards such as her award are evidence of just being a beginner. This is a perverse use of gNG.  DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states that notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That has been accomplished here as Deacon is noted and significantly covered in BBC News, The Independent, and several newspapers. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO states that a person is notable enough for an entry if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor." She received an award from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which is the largest multidisciplinary professional engineering institution in the world. WP:ANYBIO also states that a person is notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Deacon has been specifically noted for influencing the engineering industry. Any one of these factors would be enough to make Deacon notable enough for an entry, and with all of them together it is well established she is notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as per sources added by .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Added additional sources. She has been profiled as an ingenious engineer by the UKRC as well as Engineering & Technology magazine. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails WP:N, WP:GNG; it's just too soon. Quis separabit?  05:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:TOOSOON a topic might fail notability requirements if the contents of the entry are not "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources" or that verifiable sources don't exist yet. Do you have an issue with any of the sources? Why do you believe she fails WP:GNG? Lonehexagon (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:BASIC. References has been improved since nom. Mentioned in several noted magazines etc. Any other strawman argument about the references is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2018 (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.