Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elly Barnes

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elly Barnes

[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)

I am recommending deletion of this page as it is out-dated and the sources are very old. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, if someone was once notable, they remain notable, and old sources can be just as reliable as new. This is an obviously notable person at multiple levels, as activist, author, educator. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is still notable. Agreed with Elemimele. CastJared (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have made some quick updates to the article and added a variety of sources, and there appears to be sustained coverage that supports WP:BASIC notability as an educator and advocate. Beccaynr (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noting that the nominator created this article themself and has edited very little on other topics. Jules identifies as the chair of trustees of the charity founded by Barnes, so should probably not have created the article in the first place, but their request to delete the article now is strange. Notability is not temporary, so if someone was notable enough for an article (and note that the late-lamented and well-respected DGG moved it from draft to mainspace), then they are permanently notable. If the article needs to be updated, Jules should comment on the talk page with reliably-sourced suggestions for updates, possibly using {{edit-request}}. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educate & Celebrate where an article on the charity was deleted in 2021. Googling suggests that there does indeed appear to be quite a lot of controversy. The charity's website, perhaps unusually for a charity, does not have a "Who we are" page listing its CEO and trustees, perhaps quite reasonably on BLP grounds because it is in such a controversial area, so we do not know whether Barnes is still CEO. (Jules, or at least someone called Julie, is indeed chair of the trustees, verified at gov.uk.) PamD 09:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What proof do you have that the user is actually the person they claim to be and not an imposter? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None. I said that they "identify themself as ...". But my !vote is not based on their identity anyway. My comment on the oddness of the article creator requesting its deletion is valid. PamD 07:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I must've misread your comment GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources and she was made an MBE. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2023 (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.