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. Sourcing is borderline, coupled with the subject's request. Coffman has done wonderful work for which they have been recognized, but this does not appear to merit an encyclopedia article. NB in the event it matters, I don't believe I've interacted with the subject. Star Mississippi 00:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Coffman

[edit]

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

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

Not convinced this meets the notability standards required by WP:BIO - aside from the few news articles referenced mentioning their Wikipedia editing, all of the searching I've done talks about the professional career of this person (or someone with the same name), and majority of those are primary sources so not able to save the article easily with a rewrite. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notifying K.e.coffman who may wish to express an opinion (I don't believe I'm outing the WP identity since it's in the aish.com reference, in which the editor invites comments to their talk-page; but please rev-del this if you disagree). Elemimele (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wired and Aish articles are lengthy and establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article can be written to include a lot of other information from more independent reliable sources as per WP:BLP, though it is certainly Coffman's choice to whether retain this article or not. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 10:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/	Wired clearly spoke to Coffman before writing the article, but the article itself is independently written with few quotes	per WP:RSP	Lengthy article focusing on subject	✔ Yes
https://boingboing.net/2021/09/12/how-one-woman-took-on-wikipedias-nazi-fancruft.html		Website has multiple editors and contributors	~ Despite the title, the article is more based on Wikipedia itself than Coffman	~ Partial
https://www.aish.com/ci/s/The-One-Woman-Battle-Against-Pro-Nazi-Bias-on-Wikipedia.html		Established, professional-looking website	Lengthy article focusing on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/11/17/world/wikipedia-internet-fake-news/	Only content on Coffman is quotes		Only a couple of quotes from Coffman	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete It is way too much navel gazing to have an article in Wikipedia on someone known only for their actions in editing Wikipedia. We should at least require a slightly larger amount of sources before we create such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only real source is WIRED, but that's insufficient. Boing Boing is based off the WIRED article, while aish.com is an interview. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the aish.com is edited, rather than quotes, so I think it can still count towards establishing notability. NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - except when clearly notable, when an article subject supports deletion, it's typically a good idea to err on that side. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both because the subject prefers it and because it's not really about her but about Wikipedia. See WP:SELF. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not the worst I've seen, but given that notability is borderline at best, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (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.