Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Neaman

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. WaggersTALK 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Neaman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Rachel Neaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. There's some snippet routine coverage like "said Neaman" and appearing as a name in a long list of "most influential tech woman in UK". The coverage present on the subject does not rise to the level of Wiki notability.

The article was also substantially curated by a farm of several single purpose accounts over a long term. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete agree with what's said in the nom, she appears to be a talking head whenever they need an "expert" on computer stuff. There's stuff in HuffPo, but it's her talking about other subjects, the story isn't about her as a person. The unpaid editing is also a concern/possible red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Quite a few hits in GBooks, but she's proof-reading various items before publication. Zero in the NYT. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Article has lots of fluff but she's listed by ComputerWeekly as one of the most influence women in tech in at least 5 years. The remaining sources are pretty typical for an executive, announcing positions of importance. I note that she works in the non-profit sector, which is less likely to get noticed by the business press. I do not know how to access UK info on non-profits; for a US non-profit I would check the IRS 990 to see how large the organization is and how much and what type of funding they receive. If anyone knows how to do that for UK organizations I would greatly appreciate that info. Lamona (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I got bold and removed a lot of the unreferenced bio and promotional wording. Take another look at the article, please. Lamona (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment umm, the IRS Form 990 is a public record of a mandatory filing for organizations that have a financial activity above a certain threshold. Even if the UK equivalent of it was to be furnished, such primary source has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on the organization's notability. Overtly promotional writing is a reason for cleanup, but if general notability is not adequately established, the article can not stay here. Being listed as "one of the most influential" as a line item in a list of hundreds of names fails to establish WP:SIGCOV Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Aside from the blatant promotional and advertorial content of the article, like other such articles it lacks any reliable sources and relies on primary sources. There look to be few, if any, secondary or tertiary sources that can support the article, which brings into question notability. Based on what is available, she does not pass muster and doesn't qualify for Wikipedia's notability requirements. If paid editing is involved, which based on the editing pattern is quite possible, then that is even a stronger case for deletion. Mansheimer (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: not seeing any sources that pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:35, 14 December 2022 (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.