Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams

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 of the debate was The result of the discussion was no consensus, hence keep by default. Metamagician3000 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audra Williams

Her most notable achievements are writing an article for This Magazine and moderating an internet forum. This falls far short of what a reasonable person would find to be notable or encyclopedic. Homey 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete on the grounds that it appears as a vanity article, completely unencyclopedic, and uses Livejournal as a reference and external link. (Notorious4life 05:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
• Delete, forthright yet nn individual per WP:BIO. Doesn't qualify as an actor or author, and when being an internet forum mod and blogger becomes grounds for notability the battle against systemic bias will have been lost forever. Deizio talk 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to make more encyclopedic. Barely notable for the "babble" controversy (for which I've seen coverage outside of the rabble community). —GrantNeufeld 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be very interested to see mainstream media reports, which would be required to turn a forum mod into a notable figure. Even if the event was borderline notable (not convinced), it certainly doesn't automatically confer notability on those involved, and entitle them to write their own life story in a serious encyclopedia. Do you honestly believe this individual satifies the criteria at WP:BIO? Deizio talk 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm shifting my position to Weak Keep, based on further review of the discussion here. —GrantNeufeld 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Keep per GrantNeufeld. Ardenn 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• A very Weak Keep per User:GrantNeufeld; User:Deiz has a point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Being fired as a forum moderator seems awfully thin gruel for mainstream notability. Choess 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• For starters, this isn't a vanity article; I know the person who wrote it and can vouch for the fact that they aren't Audra and don't know her personally. But the bottom line for me is that I genuinely don't see how she can be deemed any less notable than Connie Wilkins, who's had an article for months whose notability nobody has ever challenged. The justification given on Audra's talk page so far is that Connie has been a candidate for the Conservative Party nomination in Kingston (except that AFD consensus has already made clear that unsuccessfully contesting a party nomination isn't a valid criterion of WP notability) and that she's organized political campaigns (which, as Audra's article makes clear, Audra has too, so it doesn't constitute a difference between them.) I think they're both keepable, personally, but my bottom line is that whatever happens, Connie and Audra need to be treated equivalently; there's absolutely no valid claim to be made that Connie is more notable than Audra is. Bearcat 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment AfD debates are considered on their own merits. It's better to resist the "If A is OK, why not B?" argument because no two people are the same, unless we're talking 5 year old twins who play the same character on a soap opera. If you believe another individual to be non-notable, that's a separate matter. WP:Relative notability to Connie Wilkins isn't a widely accepted guideline, hence Audra Williams notability would be better considered with respect to WP:BIO. Deizio talk 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a WP guideline regarding bias, and it does constitute bias by inclusion to deem Audra somehow less notable than a person whose only real claim to notability is performing an identical role on the other side of the political spectrum. Bearcat

Comment: Wilkins role is not identical to Williams, however. Wilkins is the owner of Free Dominion whilst Williams was a staffer at rabble; one of several moderators of its forum "babble". As I said on the Williams talk page, if you are looking for an equivalent figure to Wilkins it would be Judy Rebick, not Audra Williams. Also, as I said on that page, by your argument if Williams merits an article so do the other babble moderators.Homey 02:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Back to the point, delete non-notable bio. AndyJones 16:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:BIO. Friday (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. She is a known mover and shaker in Nova Scotia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobolink (talk • contribs) and is this user's only Wikipedia edit. Deizio talk 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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.