Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Brookes


 * 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 this discussion is evenly divided numerically, the source analysis table makes a convincing case for deletion, and has not been answered effectively despite having been there for six days; as such I'm seeing clear consensus to delete. I'm sensitive to the concern about gender bias, but I would argue that if we have similarly-sourced articles about male journalists we should be giving them a hard look with respect to WP:N, rather than giving this one a free pass. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Brookes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article currently has three sources: a Wordpress blog (WP:SPS, unreliable) and two articles which are by the subject, not about the subject. I've searched for better sourcing, and I did find one interview with the subject which contains a reasonable amount of stuff in the author's voice rather than the subject's (see WP:INTERVIEW for discussion of the primary/secondary nature of interviews), so some of that is usable. There is also this interview, but that is almost exclusively primary. While I can find lots of stuff that she has written, I can't find anything else about her, so I'm not convinced that WP:BASIC is met.

I'll add that I'm nominating this after it came up at ANI. Someone has been engaging in a year-long harassment campaign against the subject of the article on multiple on-line platforms, which has included numerous BLP-violating edits to our article (which I have revision deleted). I have protected it, but am bringing it here for discussion on whether or not we should actually keep it. If it is deleted, I would suggest salting the title to prevent abusive recreation; if it is kept, I'd like us to ensure that it is properly sourced, and stripped back so that the only assertions remaining are properly supported. Girth Summit  (blether) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Nearly AfD'd this myself when it appeared at ANI. There isn't notability demonstrated for her (yet). -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 13:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Sourcing is inadequate and I don’t see the significant coverage in high-quality sources that's needed for a BLP. Plus, of course, Wikipedia should not enable the harassment of women. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That all we can write about her life is a list of where she has worked and that she’s interviewed some people demonstrates that there is no significant coverage of her. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * On balance, keep. I've added a reference, and to me the level of referencing is at a level where it's acceptable, certainly compared to a number of other Sky Sports journalists in the same cat as her - who tend, of course, to be male. There are certainly two or three I found very quickly that are worse than this. Given the well established bias against articles about women on Wikipedia, in this case I'd suggest that I'd be much happier to keep this article, for now at least. Protection and watchers will help deal with the abuse, but that's very, very clearly not a reason for deleting the article. So, yeah, on balance I think right now that we should keep this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd agree with Blue Square Thing, I think there's just enough there for a GNG pass in this instance. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd also agree with Blue Square Thing NHCLS (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to make it clear, in case it wasn't already, that I was not meaning to suggest that the harassment was a reason for deletion - I just wanted to explain the circumstances that led me to look at the article, and explain why its editing history looks the way it does, with a great many of the edits (including some of the edit summaries and even the usernames of the accounts that made them) missing. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was clear - and thank you for the sterling work you've done with the edit summaries and so on on the the article. I was responding to the comment by someone else up there which gave the impression that it was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the sources in the article and created a source assessment table:
 * Based on the assessment above and my own research, WP:BASIC/WP:GNG does not appear to be supported by an interview conducted by a source that may be reliable, three blog interviews, and two sources written by the subject, so my !vote is to Delete at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the assessment above and my own research, WP:BASIC/WP:GNG does not appear to be supported by an interview conducted by a source that may be reliable, three blog interviews, and two sources written by the subject, so my !vote is to Delete at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2021 (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.