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. ✗plicit 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Deacon[edit]

Katy Deacon (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)

Main contributor recently indeffed for promo. Person's claim to fame is winning 2 awards. Both awards are minor pro-diversity titles focused on encouraging women in STEM rather than being het result of a specific outstanding achievement. These received some coverage including a short profile in the Independent and some local press, but I don't think this coverage is significant or sustained enough to warrant an article. A BEFORE turns up that she has continued her career as a civil servant but has not reached any elected positions.

There was a previous nomination which closed as no consensus. My take on the existing coverage is that:

1. Although the outlets are independent and reliable, I don't think the coverage was significant (they are short, uncritical profiles in Katy's voice without any secondary commentary) or sustained.

2. I don't think the awards in question meet the bar of "well-known and significant award or honor". Although the awarding bodies are large in both cases, the actual awards are nothing like the degree of prestige required for WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARTIST.

BrigadierG (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Engineering, and England. BrigadierG (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I agree the awards aren't really notable, and seem early career. There is some independant coverage, but not convinced it's quite enough for WP:GNG (but I could be convinced otherwise.) Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a few more opinions here!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. The narrative of the article is disjointed and extremely weak as a result. Indeed, it is rather unclear what this person did to deserve a standalone article—lots of "has worked in [field]" and "worked with [general description of a massive technology], etc. Anwegmann (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2024 (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.