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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Garbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This subject lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources required for WP:GNG. Several of the sources are self-published, several don't mention the subject at all, and the others only mention the subject in passing. A search for more sources turns up nothing but additional passing mentions. This was recently accepted from AfC and I attempted to clean up the promotional tone and improve the sourcing, but it doesn't look possible. I've placed a line-by-line analysis of the sources is on the talk page. ​​ Bradv🍁 15:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bradv. As noted on the Talk page, this article was begun by another editor during a WMUK Editathon earlier this year. I did not have the time or insight to develop it much further myself, so pushed it to AfC to see if other could help it meet the minimum standards. Thanks for your efforts, but clearly it seems to be falling short. Paul W (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A first look for sources suggests that the charity Unseen has significant coverage, and would merit a Wikipedia article. Garbers' role as founder and director of Unseen would fit within such an article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If that article existed (and satisfied WP:NORG), I would happily redirect this there as an alternative to deletion. However, it is unclear to me whether Garbers still works for the organisation, as the corporate page linked in the article shows her as resigned. Bradv🍁 16:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Response The subject is listed here as a director on Unseen's site under its current Senior Leadership Team. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; coverage is in passing, not independent of the subject's company, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I cleaned up the article, added reliable sources about the subject, who has received multiple awards. She appears to be often sought out as an expert by the media on modern slavery and human trafficking, which is why the subject is quoted a lot, and not in passing. Reuters news service alone has quoted the subject seven times, as evidenced here. The subject has received numerous awards, including a UK national award for fighting modern slavery. As such, she was named as one of the 100 most influential women in the west of England, the Social Change Award here with an Influencer Award for her efforts in combatting slavery. In 2018, Amnesty International recognized the subject here as one of six women for her work campaigning against modern injustices. The subject also worked with Parliament and contributed to the UK's 2015 Modern Slavery Act. The article now reflects all of the above, including reliable sources. It now meets notability guidelines and easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nom and the fact that it's total spammy garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page Unseen (organization) now exists, possibly due to this AfD debate, but it's a sentence long and makes no claim for notability. Maybe some kind of merge would work here but the organization's merits are questionable and some of the merits of Garbers are as well. I have spoken at a TEDx event before, and that doesn't make me notable. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The awards, the quotes from her in national sources, and the profiles of her in the references for the awards (including the national Mirror) add up to meeting WP:GNG. The article does not state that she is notable because she has given a TEDx talk, it states that she is notable for "work combatting human trafficking, including contributing to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the National Referral Mechanism Review". That is buried in the Awards section, and should be included in the lead para as well, as it is a concrete example of how she assists and advises government ... I would suggest including the Influencer Award in the intro para too, but definitely the contribution to the act and the review. (I don't think "total spammy garbage" is a valid basis for arguing for deletion - in fact, it sounds like WP:USELESS.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree per above, now she meets notability guidelines and easily passes WP:BASIC. Mmcele (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are reliable sources specificaly about her and her work, passes GNG. MurielMary (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2018 (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.