Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumaya Keynes (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soumaya Keynes

[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)

Fails WP:BIO. Lots of sources in the article, but no reliable ones discussing her directly in detail. A Google search for ""Soumaya Keynes is" doesn't yield any News or Book results. The main claim to notability in the article appears to be her role at The Economist. However that publication publishes all its articles anonymously due to a "a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it" and because its articles are considered collaborative works (detailed here). Due to this there is no reason why being a section editor at this publication should confer notability. --Pontificalibus 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 11:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am responding correctly. I am new to Wikipedia, and based on the deletions page this was my understanding of how to express my view. I apologize if this is incorrect.

I believe this article should remain. I oppose the deletion because Wikipedia's general inclusion threshold is "whether the subject is notable enough for someone to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" (taken from the Help: my article got nominated for deletion!). I believe that source 8 on the wikipedia article meets this criteria, as do others on the page. The source talks directly about Soumaya Keynes at great length and is from a reliable source (the Mercatus Center at George Mason University).

Furthermore, I believe that the article is both significant and interesting. While I agree that The Economist not crediting their journalists with authorship creates issues, the article highlighted in the "select scholarship and works" section, for example, is attributed to Keynes in multiple reputable sources (such as NPR) which can be seen in the citations. This piece is significant because it led to further research on the topic and media coverage of the piece. Furthermore, it led to further research that confirmed what had been stated in the article making the article's topic more significant. Beavinlake (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Passing WP:BIO is a different matter. At the moment I don't think she could pass WP:ECONOMIST or WP:JOURNALIST. Essentially the same criteria but applied to those fields. I can't she has done anything of note in either field. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While many of the references are indeed to primary sources, several are from valid secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I do not understand why really this nicely written notable biography is Afded now but the article was created way back in 2008. Abishe (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was created as a redirect to Keynes family in 2008, at which state it remained until 3 days ago. It is a new article. ---Pontificalibus 15:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Holds what seems to be a notable journalistic role, and is clearly identified as an expert in economics and gender, cf. reference 66 & others, amounting to WP:SIGCOV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. I believe this article should stay. There are secondary sources included, and even though the Economist's articles are anonymous, that doesn't mean being a section editor is not notable. Her name doesn't need to be on the articles for her title to mean something. Ia Mantecon (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Ia Mantecon[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Greatly improved. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see Ia Mantecon's contribution above. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2019 (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.