Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah – Endorse, but... Starting with the easy part, there's good consensus that the AfD close was correct, hence endorse. It's also policy (or at least standard practice) that an AfD decision is not binding for all time, and a new article can be created by anybody if events unfold to justify it. But, there's also agreement here that such unfolding has probably not happened to date. If somebody wants to try writing a new article, please do it in draft space and get it reviewed. If a copy of the existing article is used as the start of the draft, please read WP:COPYWITHIN and ensure that proper attribution is provided to comply with our licensing requirements. Lastly, please read WP:COI and make any required disclosures on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah was recently appointed President & CEO for one of the nation's largest refugee resettlement agencies, Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service (/Lutheran_Immigration_and_Refugee_Service). She is the first non-Lutheran to hold this position. Her work in the White House as Policy Director to Michelle Obama and Senior Advisor at the State Department under Secretary Clinton makes her a notable figure in the political sense. 216.59.110.18 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] The agency in question has an article at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which I think the proposer was trying to link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] First, the OP made no attempt to discuss this with me before opening this discussion. That said, after reviewing the AfD I am satisfied that there was a clear consensus against keeping the article. The only division was on the question of whether to delete or redirect the article. Assuming a viable argument for redirection and suitable target, and in the absence of a clear consensus one way or the other, redirection is my default close. I stand by my close of this AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Given the sources in the AfD and that discussion, I find the whole thing unsatisfactory. Let's look at the sources. [1] is an amazing source. What the hell are we doing deleting an article with a source like that? [2] is from the Washington Post and has her as the focus. [3] is a bit more "run of the mill" and covers a single event, but still. [4] is a nice overview of her wedding etc. which has significant biographical information. Yes, she probably doesn't meet WP:POL. But some of this coverage isn't about her running for office. And the Marie Claire article, while focused on her candidacy, is in-depth and serious. But yeah, the !voters in the AfD clearly didn't feel the article belonged. So weak endorse of what I view as a consensus that seems at odds with WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Considering her new role at LIRS, I think this shifts the argument from whether she is a notable politician to whether she is a relevant influential figure in a subject area that is front and center for the public consciousness: immigration policy. Based on some of recent coverage I've seen from her, that answer is a clear yes. I say restore it. Naman.nepal (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) Close looks fine to me, so that's a endorse, but the "recently appointed" bits make me think this is more a "allow recreation or not" DRV than a "overturn the close or endorse" DRV. The AfD is fairly recent. I'll probably have a look at the sources available tomorrow before saying anything, but it's probably easiest just to pass it through as a draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any need for this to go through deletion review. The deletion discussion was closed as "redirect" and the history kept, so if more sources and information have come to light since then it should be possible for anyone to revert the redirect and add this new stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] I believe the sources all come from before the AfD close. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] I've found one source that was published a month after the close. It looks like if there's anything else about the refugee resettlement agency may be after the close as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] I agree this doesn't really have anything to do with the DRV (I voted in the first deletion discussion) and would recommend restoring this to a draft if new sources can be demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Allow re-creation It might not have been necessary to ask here first, but it is not ab as idea, for it prevents an over-hastey speedy deletion without it being relaized there is additional information. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse but Allow Re-Creation with review of draft, as stated by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment While I stand by my close, that close was to redirect the page. I have no objection to restoring the page provided that there has been a significant change in the status of the subject that our guidelines recognize as conferring notability, and/or in depth reliable source coverage that either did not then exist or was not presented at the AfD has been found. While I am not generally a fan of speedy recreation or restoration of articles that the community just said "no" to, I do recognize that sometimes circumstances change. And sometimes that change can occur soon after an AfD discussion is closed. The bottom line is always what our policies and guidelines say and whether or not the subject meets those guidelines. Here I must note that neither of the positions the OP points to being held by the subject meet any of our guidelines for conferring presumptive notability. So this leaves us with whether or not there is enough in depth coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources, that was not discussed in the AfD to justify restoration of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Courtesy ping to all editors who participated in the AfD... Bearcat, Johnpacklambert, RebeccaGreen, Bkissin, Enos733, Cheesesteak1, Rms125a@hotmail.com -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Just to be clear, the notability test is not what the article says, it's how well the article references what it says — there is no job that any person can ever have that automatically guarantees them a Wikipedia article, just because they exist, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about their work in that role to get them over WP:GNG. Being the president and CEO of any organization, for example, is not an instant notability freebie, and "first person of a non-Lutheran religious background to lead a Lutheran organization" is not a free pass to making her special either — her includability still depends on the depth and range and volume of media coverage she can or cannot be shown to have received for it. But at the same time, an AFD deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article at all — we have lots of articles that once got deleted because the subject did not clear our notability standards at the time, but then circumstances changed later on. Sometimes the election candidate who tried to use Wikipedia to repost their campaign brochures when they were just a candidate, and got deleted on that basis, actually does win the election in the end. Sometimes the musician who tried to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform when they were just an aspiring wannabe actually does go on to clear NMUSIC months or years later. And on and so forth. And when that happens, the original deletion discussion does not ban the creation of a new article about that person — their basis for notability has changed from what it was the first time, so a new article can absolutely be created without needing to relitigate the original discussion. I can even point to examples on Wikipedia of people where I was simultaneously both the deletion nominator of the bad first version, and the creator of the new version once the notability basis had changed. So if somebody thinks they can write and reference an article that makes a stronger notability case than the previous version did, then they're free to do that in a userspace or draftspace draft — and then if they actually do a good job, the article can be moved back into articlespace again. And the fact that the requester is effectively an SPA whose edit history pertains almost entirely to the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service itself suggests a potential conflict of interest by an editor who may not actually understand our rules or processes or notability standards at all, and thus should almost certainly use the AFC process so that their work can be reviewed. But DRV does not have to overturn the previous deletion before anybody is allowed to even try writing a new article about her — an article will have to be better than the old version before it can be approved, but you do not require DRV's permission before you're allowed to try. Go to draftspace, and have a ball — if you do a good job, the AFC reviewer will approve it, and if you don't do a good job, they won't. But she's not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she's been appointed president of an organization, or because she had civil service positions in the government bureaucracy — her includability still depends on the quality of the job you can do, and the quality of the sourcing you can show to support it. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Properly run and closed AfD. Discourage recreation unless she gets improved coverage in other articles, such as Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. She needs more coverage of what she is notable for, in existing articles, before it is appropriate to write an original biography highlighting her internship and covering the birth of her daughter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah – Endorse, but... Starting with the easy part, there's good consensus that the AfD close was correct, hence endorse. It's also policy (or at least standard practice) that an AfD decision is not binding for all time, and a new article can be created by anybody if events unfold to justify it. But, there's also agreement here that such unfolding has probably not happened to date. If somebody wants to try writing a new article, please do it in draft space and get it reviewed. If a copy of the existing article is used as the start of the draft, please read WP:COPYWITHIN and ensure that proper attribution is provided to comply with our licensing requirements. Lastly, please read WP:COI and make any required disclosures on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah was recently appointed President & CEO for one of the nation's largest refugee resettlement agencies, Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service (/Lutheran_Immigration_and_Refugee_Service). She is the first non-Lutheran to hold this position. Her work in the White House as Policy Director to Michelle Obama and Senior Advisor at the State Department under Secretary Clinton makes her a notable figure in the political sense. 216.59.110.18 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The agency in question has an article at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which I think the proposer was trying to link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, the OP made no attempt to discuss this with me before opening this discussion. That said, after reviewing the AfD I am satisfied that there was a clear consensus against keeping the article. The only division was on the question of whether to delete or redirect the article. Assuming a viable argument for redirection and suitable target, and in the absence of a clear consensus one way or the other, redirection is my default close. I stand by my close of this AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sources in the AfD and that discussion, I find the whole thing unsatisfactory. Let's look at the sources. [1] is an amazing source. What the hell are we doing deleting an article with a source like that? [2] is from the Washington Post and has her as the focus. [3] is a bit more "run of the mill" and covers a single event, but still. [4] is a nice overview of her wedding etc. which has significant biographical information. Yes, she probably doesn't meet WP:POL. But some of this coverage isn't about her running for office. And the Marie Claire article, while focused on her candidacy, is in-depth and serious. But yeah, the !voters in the AfD clearly didn't feel the article belonged. So weak endorse of what I view as a consensus that seems at odds with WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering her new role at LIRS, I think this shifts the argument from whether she is a notable politician to whether she is a relevant influential figure in a subject area that is front and center for the public consciousness: immigration policy. Based on some of recent coverage I've seen from her, that answer is a clear yes. I say restore it. Naman.nepal (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Close looks fine to me, so that's a endorse, but the "recently appointed" bits make me think this is more a "allow recreation or not" DRV than a "overturn the close or endorse" DRV. The AfD is fairly recent. I'll probably have a look at the sources available tomorrow before saying anything, but it's probably easiest just to pass it through as a draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for this to go through deletion review. The deletion discussion was closed as "redirect" and the history kept, so if more sources and information have come to light since then it should be possible for anyone to revert the redirect and add this new stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the sources all come from before the AfD close. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've found one source that was published a month after the close. It looks like if there's anything else about the refugee resettlement agency may be after the close as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this doesn't really have anything to do with the DRV (I voted in the first deletion discussion) and would recommend restoring this to a draft if new sources can be demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation It might not have been necessary to ask here first, but it is not ab as idea, for it prevents an over-hastey speedy deletion without it being relaized there is additional information. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but Allow Re-Creation with review of draft, as stated by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I stand by my close, that close was to redirect the page. I have no objection to restoring the page provided that there has been a significant change in the status of the subject that our guidelines recognize as conferring notability, and/or in depth reliable source coverage that either did not then exist or was not presented at the AfD has been found. While I am not generally a fan of speedy recreation or restoration of articles that the community just said "no" to, I do recognize that sometimes circumstances change. And sometimes that change can occur soon after an AfD discussion is closed. The bottom line is always what our policies and guidelines say and whether or not the subject meets those guidelines. Here I must note that neither of the positions the OP points to being held by the subject meet any of our guidelines for conferring presumptive notability. So this leaves us with whether or not there is enough in depth coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources, that was not discussed in the AfD to justify restoration of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to all editors who participated in the AfD... Bearcat, Johnpacklambert, RebeccaGreen, Bkissin, Enos733, Cheesesteak1, Rms125a@hotmail.com -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the notability test is not what the article says, it's how well the article references what it says — there is no job that any person can ever have that automatically guarantees them a Wikipedia article, just because they exist, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about their work in that role to get them over WP:GNG. Being the president and CEO of any organization, for example, is not an instant notability freebie, and "first person of a non-Lutheran religious background to lead a Lutheran organization" is not a free pass to making her special either — her includability still depends on the depth and range and volume of media coverage she can or cannot be shown to have received for it.
But at the same time, an AFD deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article at all — we have lots of articles that once got deleted because the subject did not clear our notability standards at the time, but then circumstances changed later on. Sometimes the election candidate who tried to use Wikipedia to repost their campaign brochures when they were just a candidate, and got deleted on that basis, actually does win the election in the end. Sometimes the musician who tried to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform when they were just an aspiring wannabe actually does go on to clear NMUSIC months or years later. And on and so forth. And when that happens, the original deletion discussion does not ban the creation of a new article about that person — their basis for notability has changed from what it was the first time, so a new article can absolutely be created without needing to relitigate the original discussion. I can even point to examples on Wikipedia of people where I was simultaneously both the deletion nominator of the bad first version, and the creator of the new version once the notability basis had changed.
So if somebody thinks they can write and reference an article that makes a stronger notability case than the previous version did, then they're free to do that in a userspace or draftspace draft — and then if they actually do a good job, the article can be moved back into articlespace again. And the fact that the requester is effectively an SPA whose edit history pertains almost entirely to the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service itself suggests a potential conflict of interest by an editor who may not actually understand our rules or processes or notability standards at all, and thus should almost certainly use the AFC process so that their work can be reviewed. But DRV does not have to overturn the previous deletion before anybody is allowed to even try writing a new article about her — an article will have to be better than the old version before it can be approved, but you do not require DRV's permission before you're allowed to try.
Go to draftspace, and have a ball — if you do a good job, the AFC reviewer will approve it, and if you don't do a good job, they won't. But she's not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she's been appointed president of an organization, or because she had civil service positions in the government bureaucracy — her includability still depends on the quality of the job you can do, and the quality of the sourcing you can show to support it. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Properly run and closed AfD. Discourage recreation unless she gets improved coverage in other articles, such as Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. She needs more coverage of what she is notable for, in existing articles, before it is appropriate to write an original biography highlighting her internship and covering the birth of her daughter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.