851:
refers to something. Number of times mentioned wouldn't be a factor in any case, as we do not decide notability just by counting references, but by assessing them. And I'm really suprised at saying the BBC1000 deserves special credit as a government-related source. There's no such policy, and in general I'd say that state-sponsored media might even be less trustworthy than independent ones. The BBC is indeed a special case of long time reliability in its news coverage, but I don't think its opinion in making a list of that sort should have special cosnideration. It's time we stopped using such list placement as evidence of anything at AfD.
401:
850:
worthless for notability, because it has no editorial controls and deliberaately lets the contributors print what they like -- that policy is their major innovation & what makes it interesting to read, a sort of cross between a blog and a newspaper; it therefore doesn't matter how many times it
479:
This would be within the BBC sourcing as they were the company that produced the special interest story of the person in order to make them notable and place in the 100 Women: the special was released in 2013 and she was on the list for 2013. The
Huffpost article is also UK-based, but not immediately
991:
I tend to prefer not to delete articles in general, but cannot the article be improved? it basically amount to two sentences, I'm sure that, with a little effort, info about education, family background and so on can be found, cannot be? It would help people deciding on the keep. I tend not to write
522:
that's independent of the topic and that coverage is in-depth. If the person wasn't notable, the BBC wouldn't have done a story on them. You seem to have the concept of notability backwards. The topic is considered notable if a reliable source gives in-depth coverage to them, not the other way
689:
The BBC 100 Women list is populated with relevant women chosen by the BBC. If this person is important enough for the BBC to feature her several times on their national state-sponsored platform, then she should be important enough to be written about on
Knowledge (XXG).
793:
My logic is that two is multiple, so if all the 6 or 7 BBC sources are one, and the
Huffington Post article is the other, then that is enough for the requirement of multiple sources. And this should be acceptable because the BBC is very important and reliable.
896:
on the basis of my comment above: looking at history of this and related articles, the entire basis of this is the attempt to use the list for notability and to write articles on everyone included. This is mistaking publicity for encyclopedic notability ,
766:
No, the discussion is about whether being on BBC 100 Women and having related articles around that event is enough to show notability. At this point only the
Huffington Post article is counting as the second of multiple sources independent of the subject.
545:
I'm just saying that BBC Outlook vs. BBC 100 Women shouldn't be counted as two separate sources, given the timing of the publication of the video and the list. It's also a case where the
Outlook is but a segment of the program, not the full video.
751:
that are unlikely to count. She was on two BBC 100 women lists, at least according to the article. I think all of this should be considered separately from the decision made by you and the policy department on that other person.
192:
Another case of someone who became notable because she was put on the BBC 100 Women list. No coverage of her outside of the brief coverage of being on that list. The other references presented are connected to her website.
975:
925:
799:
757:
695:
161:
971:
921:
795:
753:
691:
744:
issue of some sort. Now this person is different because she was on other BBC programs, not just featured on the list, she was even featured on the world service. She is talked about in the
286:
254:
114:
740:
That discussion is about someone else, who was only featured once. There was no binding judgment, just a few people makes vague comments about how just being on the list is a
480:
tied directly to BBC's research. Huffpost also covered her work in 2014 in which she was also placed in 100 Women in 2014. This should be added to the article as part of the
318:
808:
That makes sense. Question is whether articles from these two major sources are good enough to establish notability for the person, or whether others are still needed.
350:
606:
155:
222:
917:
121:
709:
970:
It would be astounding if she did, with their 81 users and the tiny collection of articles they have, barely 0.5% of what we have here.
17:
955:
823:
782:
727:
624:
561:
499:
368:
336:
304:
272:
240:
208:
87:
82:
846:
I was asllked by AngusWOOF to comment on the HP. (I may give a !vote later). I think the curent consensus is consider the
91:
576:
makes no discrimination of in-depth coverage that comes from a "segment" of a work from an independent reliable source. If
176:
871:
664:
640:
582:
did an in-depth piece on a person, there would be no negation of in-depth coverage simply because it was a "segment." --
143:
74:
1047:
40:
446:
390:
745:
459:
137:
749:
1043:
997:
882:
675:
133:
36:
1026:
1001:
979:
961:
929:
908:
886:
862:
829:
803:
788:
761:
733:
699:
679:
655:
630:
591:
567:
540:
505:
470:
428:
394:
374:
342:
310:
278:
246:
214:
56:
78:
484:
as the description as it currently is does not even have these references to justify its notability.
386:
529:
notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
481:
949:
817:
776:
721:
618:
555:
493:
362:
330:
298:
266:
234:
202:
183:
169:
528:
1022:
587:
536:
466:
424:
70:
62:
741:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1042:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1010:
993:
1014:
573:
524:
511:
650:
452:
519:
149:
400:
941:
809:
768:
713:
610:
547:
485:
354:
322:
290:
258:
226:
194:
1018:
904:
858:
583:
532:
462:
420:
53:
108:
578:
457:
440:
899:
853:
940:
Also note that she does not have an entry in
Burmese Knowledge (XXG).
708:
Being on the BBC 100 Women list is not enough to be notable. See
1036:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
874:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
667:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
643:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
415:
409:
104:
100:
96:
168:
880:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
673:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
649:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
413:only a 1 minute after the user's previous !vote in
287:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
182:
255:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1050:). No further edits should be made to this page.
710:Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women
605:Note: This discussion has been included in the
385:The BBC honor is not enough to show notability.
916:Note: This debate has been mentioned on the
510:That's a confirmation that this topic passes
319:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
351:list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions
349:Note: This debate has been included in the
317:Note: This debate has been included in the
285:Note: This debate has been included in the
253:Note: This debate has been included in the
221:Note: This debate has been included in the
992:on living person, otherwise I would do it.
607:list of People-related deletion discussions
915:
604:
348:
316:
284:
252:
223:list of Women-related deletion discussions
220:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
570:updated 08:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
407:: The above !vote was typed in and
24:
748:. Also on various charity sites
399:
1:
1027:02:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
1002:22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
980:23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
962:20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
930:11:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
909:06:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
887:13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
863:21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
830:17:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
804:17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
789:16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
762:16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
734:16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
700:11:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
680:11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
656:15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
592:04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
438:- Extensive coverage on the
57:06:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
631:23:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
568:04:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
541:03:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
506:02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
471:02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
429:02:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
395:02:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
375:00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
343:00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
311:00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
279:00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
247:00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
215:00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
1067:
527:makes it explicitly clear
456:as well as the BBC honor.
523:around. As for HEYMANN,
1039:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
416:another deletion debate
918:WT:WIR discussion page
972:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
922:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
796:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
754:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
692:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
946:
814:
773:
718:
615:
552:
490:
359:
327:
295:
263:
231:
199:
942:
932:
889:
810:
769:
714:
682:
658:
633:
611:
548:
486:
387:John Pack Lambert
377:
355:
345:
323:
313:
291:
281:
259:
249:
227:
195:
1058:
1041:
958:
952:
945:
885:
879:
877:
875:
826:
820:
813:
785:
779:
772:
730:
724:
717:
678:
672:
670:
668:
653:
648:
646:
644:
627:
621:
614:
564:
558:
551:
502:
496:
489:
418:
412:
403:
371:
365:
358:
339:
333:
326:
307:
301:
294:
275:
269:
262:
243:
237:
230:
211:
205:
198:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1048:deletion review
1037:
956:
950:
943:
890:
881:
870:
868:
848:Huffington Post
824:
818:
811:
783:
777:
770:
746:huffington post
728:
722:
715:
683:
674:
663:
661:
659:
651:
639:
637:
625:
619:
612:
562:
556:
549:
520:reliable source
500:
494:
487:
453:Huffington Post
414:
408:
369:
363:
356:
337:
331:
324:
305:
299:
292:
273:
267:
260:
241:
235:
228:
209:
203:
196:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1064:
1062:
1053:
1052:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1005:
1004:
985:
984:
983:
982:
965:
964:
934:
933:
912:
911:
878:
867:
866:
865:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
738:
737:
736:
703:
702:
671:
660:
647:
636:
635:
634:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
474:
473:
433:
432:
431:
405:Note to closer
379:
378:
346:
314:
282:
250:
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1063:
1051:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
987:
986:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:
967:
966:
963:
959:
953:
947:
939:
936:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
914:
913:
910:
906:
902:
901:
895:
892:
891:
888:
884:
883:North America
876:
873:
864:
860:
856:
855:
849:
845:
841:
840:
831:
827:
821:
815:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
792:
791:
790:
786:
780:
774:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
725:
719:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
688:
685:
684:
681:
677:
676:North America
669:
666:
657:
654:
645:
642:
632:
628:
622:
616:
608:
603:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
575:
572:
571:
569:
565:
559:
553:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
503:
497:
491:
483:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
468:
464:
460:
458:
455:
454:
449:
448:
443:
442:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
411:
406:
402:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
384:
381:
380:
376:
372:
366:
360:
352:
347:
344:
340:
334:
328:
320:
315:
312:
308:
302:
296:
288:
283:
280:
276:
270:
264:
256:
251:
248:
244:
238:
232:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
206:
200:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1038:
1035:
988:
937:
898:
893:
869:
852:
847:
843:
712:discussion.
686:
662:
638:
577:
515:
451:
445:
439:
435:
404:
382:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1011:Elisa.rolle
994:Elisa.rolle
156:free images
71:May Tha Hla
63:May Tha Hla
652:Optakeover
579:60 Minutes
482:WP:HEYMANN
1044:talk page
1013:Yes, see
944:AngusWOOF
812:AngusWOOF
771:AngusWOOF
716:AngusWOOF
613:AngusWOOF
550:AngusWOOF
488:AngusWOOF
441:BBC Radio
357:AngusWOOF
325:AngusWOOF
293:AngusWOOF
261:AngusWOOF
229:AngusWOOF
197:AngusWOOF
37:talk page
1046:or in a
1019:Hmlarson
872:Relisted
742:WP:BLP1E
665:Relisted
641:Relisted
584:Oakshade
533:Oakshade
463:Oakshade
450:and the
444:program
421:Oakshade
115:View log
39:or in a
989:Comment
938:Comment
894:Delete.
844:comment
514:. The
447:Outlook
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
54:Spartaz
1015:WP:ATD
574:WP:GNG
525:WP:GNG
512:WP:GNG
383:Delete
134:Google
92:delete
50:delete
957:sniff
905:talk
859:talk
825:sniff
784:sniff
729:sniff
626:sniff
563:sniff
518:is a
501:sniff
410:saved
370:sniff
338:sniff
306:sniff
274:sniff
242:sniff
210:sniff
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1023:talk
998:talk
976:talk
951:bark
926:talk
819:bark
800:talk
778:bark
758:talk
723:bark
696:talk
687:Keep
620:bark
588:talk
557:bark
537:talk
531:. --
495:bark
467:talk
436:Keep
425:talk
391:talk
364:bark
332:bark
300:bark
268:bark
236:bark
204:bark
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
900:DGG
854:DGG
516:BBC
419:.--
184:TWL
113:– (
1025:)
1017:.
1000:)
978:)
960:)
954:•
928:)
920:.
907:)
861:)
828:)
822:•
802:)
787:)
781:•
760:)
732:)
726:•
698:)
629:)
623:•
609:.
590:)
566:)
560:•
539:)
504:)
498:•
469:)
461:--
427:)
393:)
373:)
367:•
353:.
341:)
335:•
321:.
309:)
303:•
289:.
277:)
271:•
257:.
245:)
239:•
225:.
213:)
207:•
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:.
1021:(
996:(
974:(
948:(
924:(
903:(
857:(
842:'
816:(
798:(
775:(
756:(
720:(
694:(
617:(
586:(
554:(
535:(
492:(
465:(
423:(
389:(
361:(
329:(
297:(
265:(
233:(
201:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.