Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Ashley-Nelson

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, coupled, with her failing WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe redirect? to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2014#Cynthia Ashley-Nelson (Cindamuse) or something? mainly similar content there, idk if that violates a policy though ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check this other article Adrianne Wadewitz, its similar, nobody deleted it. Cynthia Ashley-Nelson is not a memorial article is a normal article. --Leglish (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first, no article here sets a precedent for any other. In order to have an article here Ms Ashley-Nelson must be inherently notable. It's actually quite distressing that we are discussing a recently deceased Wikipedian, but, unless she has inherent notability an article should not have been constructed in the first place. Now we are stuck with a deletion discussion (and yes, I know I initiated it). Fiddle Faddle 16:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate to redirect main-space-page to Wikipedia-space-memorial-page. I did extensive searching and found zero (0) secondary source discussion of this person. Zero secondary sources in searches of Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Zero secondary sources in search of NewsBank. Zero secondary sources in search of InfoTrac Newsstand. Fails WP:GNG. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson was one of the most active female wikipedists and also was vice-chair of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee. --Leglish (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been mentioned in any secondary sources? — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this article can be kept, as the sourcing for GNG is not there. So it should be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am tempted to do so boldly and out of process, but I've asked Leglish on their userpage if they object to me userfying this page. There is little chance that this AfD would close as anything other than delete, and I would prefer to avoid an AfD about a sensitive issue where the outcome is inevitable. I was friends with Cindy, miss her, and value the work that she did, but at this point in time, the outcome of this discussion is a given, and it would be easier to handle this with immediate userification than a seven day discussion. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perfectly understood. A bold deletion out of process is wholly in order here. The article ought never to have been created, and the creation and only the creation caused the discussion. Such a discussion, while necessary, diminishes the lady's memory. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would prefer a Merge to Catalyst Resource Network, but seeing as the organization isn't WP:NOTABLE, I really doubt that she's notable. I almost feel like this was created just because of the timing of her death right on the heels of Adrianne Wadewitz, and Cynthia here doesn't have near the reliable coverage to establish notability. I did some cleanup to the article, but holy crap, there's not a lot past what she did on-wiki, most of which isn't really important. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]