Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Blackwell


 * 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. The consensus below is that the coverage of the subject is not enough to establish notability even as an activist. She certainly does not meet the standard set out in WP:PROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sue Blackwell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable academic, certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF. There are some news hits because of her anti-Israel activism in the AUT/UCU, but if that's the only basis for an article then we've got WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Doesn't meet WP:Prof, but Blackwell's notoriety comes from her political activism not her research. Curiously, it is this material that somebody keeps deleting from her article, thereby making her a candidate for deletion. Also, there have been at least two cases in which she has been discussed in the media (admittedly, both related to Israel), which would appear to discount deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E. Famousdog (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've just confirmed that it's BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * KeepI am struggling to wrap my mind how a career in Anti-Israel activism that spans years is somehow a single event. I am forced to just throw out the nominator's reasoning entirely. WP:PROF obviously does not apply here, because she is not well known for being a professor, but for her activism. There are sources entirely about her, such as this, along with a bunch of other sources discussing her, a search of which including Israel can be found here. Silver  seren C 22:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria as listed in the guideline to have an article. I notice also, that editors have edit warred to keep mention of anti-semitic allegations in the article.  Yet another piece of evidence as to why Wikipedia probably shouldn't have BLPs in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it disheartening how many people ignore the top part of the criteria, which states, "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." She clearly meets the WP:GNG from the numerous news articles and books discussing her. Just because she doesn't meet ACADEMIC doesn't mean she is non-notable, it just means that she isn't automatically notable due to that guideline. Silver  seren C 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Subject could attain notability either for her academic work through WP:Prof or through her anti-semitic activism through WP:GNG but the sources do not seem sufficient for either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC).
 * How, exactly, are the sources not sufficient? Please elaborate. Silver  seren C 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete there are lots of organisations, large and small, that are making the news regarding decisions to boycott Israeli suppliers, partners, etc. They are not individually notable; they are newsworthy because of the theme, and should be covered within the pages of Boycotts of Israel.  Likewise a lot of people are called anti-Semitic, predictably followed by denials.  A biography is only desirable if the public have an enduring reason to better understand the person who has made a unique (or at least memorable) contribution to progress, culture, etc.  I dont see it in this instance. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: No assertion of notability. Coverage in a few Guardian articles certainly doesn't cut it. I did find the "personal pronouns" bit interesting, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete The notability claim is difficult: seems to be borderline not notable. Doesn't meet standards for academic notability. Is only mentioned in the articles in the very narrow context of her work on the boycotts. If she was a more prominent leader and they focused more on her it might be different. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet Notability (academics) Starionwolf (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (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.