Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Phipps

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion were made. Fences&Windows 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Phipps

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

Reason Scott9432 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Having read through this article out of interest, I don't think this person is exactly in any way special compared to other activists, if every activist were to be given their own page, wikipedia would have taken over most of the internet by now.[reply]

Keep. Jill Phipps has become notable since her death. --Michig (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Independant found her death by veal truck notable enough to address. There are also a number of google books and google scholar hits. - BalthCat (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has featured in the national media. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many people feature in the media who haven't been given a wikipedia page. And I know of several news reports of activists protecting forests who have been killed while doing so by logging equipment or the trees falling themselves, incidently, none of these activists feature on wikipedia. EDIT: Also the quality of the article itself has some issues, alot of it sounds as if it was written by a friend, which I'm sure I read somewhere isn't supposed to be on wikipedia. Scott9432 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has been prominent in national media. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those other activists are not relevant to this discussion. If you mentioned them by name, they may be demonstrably notable for the coverage of their death. Even if they aren't, no one claimed that the decision by the media and book authors to focus on Phipps and not others is somehow logical. Articles in the wrong tone can be edited to have the proper tone; that alone is not a reason to delete. - BalthCat (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be assessed as it is together with its potential for improvement, and not confused with non-existent articles about "other activists". Snowman (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I implied. - BalthCat (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the other activists ARE relevant to this discussion, the point is that she was an activist, which many people are, she protested for the same things that she and many others believe in, but I just don't understand how she is notable enough, what has she done that other activists haven't? And are you now saying that someone has to be well featured in the media to be notable? Scott9432 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being featured in reliable sources is precisely what makes a subject notable for Wikipedia. If there are other activists as notable as Jill Phipps who don't yet have Wikipedia articles then you are welcome to create them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article show that the subject was still being featured in the media 10 years after her death, and, by clicking on the Google books link helpfully provided at the top of this discussion, we can see that there is plenty more evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly was a notable animal rights activist, according to lots of reliables sources. First Light (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still personally don't think this article is notable and should be deleted, but clearly the majority is against me here, do I need to do something to close this discussion or does a moderator do it? Also do I delete the notice thing? Scott9432 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.