Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susannah Fullerton

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 moved to Draft:Susannah Fullerton. Yes, I realize that none of the participants in the discussion have proposed this, but we are stuck on the edge of a cliff here. A majority favors either deletion or redirection somewhere else, but there is not a clear consensus for deletion. On the other hand, some of the "keep" rationales are based on a quality of the subject that is not a basis for keeping - receipt of the lowest level of the Order of Australia award. A quick independent look at news hits reveals that there are a substantial number of possibilities which could support notability as a noted field expert, independent of any award status, but these need to be more thoroughly plumbed. Therefore, the article is moved to draft, and can be submitted to restoration to mainspace through the usual process for submission of drafts; of course, if it is left untouched for an extended period, it will automatically be deleted. bd2412 T 16:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Fullerton

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

Fails notability criteria at WP:BIO, minimal sourcing and certainly not written from a neutral POV. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient NEXIST to support the article, but which could be better referenced. Certainly does not appear to be written by someone who dislikes the subject, but it does not appear to biased with praise either. The article could do with some wikification and restyling, but that is not grounds for deletion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid for promotion. Something Wikipedia is not. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that was an actual policy to delete articles, Bullets and Daffodils would be toast. See parallel discussion on WT:CSD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about which WT:CSD thread you're referring to? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and temporarily salt per nom and Duffbeerforme. Article mainly written by a WP:SPA whose userpage ([1]) has a link to some kind of online marketing/SEO website misleadingly labeled "Independent web developer," which is not adequate WP:COI disclosure for me. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION, this article should be WP:TNTed to discourage such behavior. I don't think any volunteer editors should waste their time earning the paid editor her fee. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but suggest re-targeting the article as the Jane Austen Society of Australia as that's what the news hits seem to talk about more. The promotional fluff can be cleaned up by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want to drop some tactical nukes or stub-ify then fine, but she passes the GNG, regardless of NPOV or COI. ABC Online and several Australian articles in the past decade are what convinced me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. If some other, established, editor wants to write a new article about this person, that's fine. But we're not providing free advertising space. I'm not going to waste time finding the right policy to cite, so call it WP:IAR if you want to. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could post-relist commenters please weigh in on whether or not the article's sources demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for her own article? Please bear in mind that promotional tone is a reason to cleanup the article, not a reason to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references indicate any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (albeit weak) - may just scrape through minimum notability, particularly as there is some coverage from reputable sources and she has received an OAM. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG and BIO. None of the current references (or any other reliable sources I could find) are specifically about her. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done as much cleaning up of this article as I meant to, but I do note that she is reliably sourced as having received the Order of Australia, which would seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO point 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of Order of Australia award. A "Companion" level award would probably satisfy WP:ANYBIO point 1, otherwise it is questionable especially the further down one goes in award seniority.--Rpclod (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has the Medal (OAM), the lowest honour in the Order of Australia. It has been established multiple times that the OAM definitely does not satisfy ANYBIO. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Bungle. I hate the idea of paid submissions as much as anyone but a recipient of the OAM is notable, IMHO. --Ifnord (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OAM is definitely not enough for inherent notability. It is a worthy award, but a glance down the most recent list will show very clearly that it is not a suitable benchmark for notability. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (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.