Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Gasper

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gasper

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

I have been contacted by Julia Gasper who wants this article deleted. Upon checking the article, I found that Julia Hasper meets neither the not ability criteria for academic nor for politician. Also the article is not carefully neutral per BLPs, most references are from LGBT partisan site with bias against the subject. Irmgard (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the press in question is respectable professional press, and Gasper's views as documented therein have clearly achieved considerable and extensively documented noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she really has received tremendous coverage so she passes via GNG. Her bio tracks all the articles about her. It appears like she spends every waking minute publicly attacking gay people so that is what her bio is going to reflect. If she doesn't like this news coverage, maybe she should do something else with her time. If someone wants to trim the article, go ahead, I got nauseated just reading it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article sourcing seems a little unbalanced in favor of one particular source, PinkNews, but that source doesn't really have a different slant on her than the others, so I don't think this compromises the neutrality of our article. And in any case, she has significant coverage in major news outlets, enough for a clear pass of WP:GNG. I'm willing to listen to subject requests in borderline cases, but this doesn't look borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (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.