Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Beeley

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeley

[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)

Delete as nom Non-notable conspiracy peddler who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO KidAd (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantial RS coverage of this person (BBC, PBS, Guardian, France24, HuffPost, NY Review of Books, Snopes), including detailed coverage by the NY Review of Books[1] and coverage in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review which highlights her as the single most influential disinformation peddler in the Syrian Civil War.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is adequately covered in reliable sources to a sufficient extent to establish wiki-notability. Moreover, it serves the public interest for our encyclopedia to document the spreaders of disinformation. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is certainly valid, but any notion that granting non-notable spreaders of disinformation any shred of legitimacy is detrimental to the project. And as the page exists now, it appears as a clear Wikipedia:Attack page. I am in no way endorsing or supporting this individual's views, but the fact that the page lacks basic biographic material (birthdate, birthplace, education, etc.) and only serves as a repository for falsehoods and misnomers, speaks volumes. KidAd (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls under the fringe guidelines. I do not think we have the level of indepth, reliable, and I emphasize that as key, secondary source coverage to pass that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing looks good to me, and she is notable enough that she is mentioned as some pushing misinformation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She may be a conspiracy theorist but she passes notability guidelines. Frankly on an encyclopedia that has articles for neo-Nazis, it makes no sense to start worrying that "granting non-notable spreaders of disinformation any shred of legitimacy is detrimental to the project". Wikipedia weighs notability on the number of available sources, not on the coherency of a subjects views.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2020 (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.