Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasha Williamson

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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Williamson

[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)

Non notable activist. The references are mostly articles about events in which she was one of the many people who appeared, or one of the people who signed a petition. and her name is included along with others. Some of them are statement she herself has made. Some of them are reports on local election campaigns. All of this is essentially her own publicity. The reasons why news sources print her name is because of the perceived importance of the causes she has associated herself with, not of her.

Almost all the citations are local. It's true that San Diego is an important city, but if she were actually notable , there would be much wider coverage.

I have supported, and still support, the view that we should include articles on all major party nominees for national office, though this has never been generally accepted as consensus. But this is someone who has never won the primary for a party nomination, and that nomination would have been for only a municipal office; this would therefore fail even myvery loose criteria.

It would therefore be reasonable to ask why this article was written. It wasn't apparently written by the candidate herself, or an advocate for her, both of whom, while they would have had a conflict of interest, would be in a somewhat excusable situation. Rather, it's paid for, and written by an undeclared paid editor (who has made it plain in other AfD discussions--discussion which are now taking place for every one of his articles---that he was in fact a paid editor.) And worse--he used illegitimately the excuse of a Women in Red campaign to insert the article. WiR is important--we need very much to expand the coverage of notable women. it shouldn'tbe perverted to support advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I do not believe that this isn't a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. Several news sources have run articles on her specifically, singling out either her activism or her bid for office, Tasha Williamson is one of only 3 candidates running for the San Diego mayor's office in a campaign that has 3 Democrats and no Republicans, and she has been an anti-violence activist for years, even winning a California Peace Prize for her efforts. She founded an organization that has worked with San Diegan survivors of gun violence for 11 years, and has worked with several other orgs. She was also the spokesperson for several families who lost loved ones to police violence, which seems like something which has a cumulative notability. If it is agreed that she is still not notable because she has not made much impact outside of the greater San Diego area, then so be it, but it is not as if she is some random person. I would say that a San Diego mayoral candidate is automatically notable, regardless of who won a Democratic party endorsement, but that is neither here nor there.

Regarding my status as a paid editor, I did in fact declare that I was paid by for revisions before I was asked to declare it, as can be seen on my user page's revision history, so I really do not appreciate being accused of not declaring that I am a paid editor. I never in any way associated Tasha Williamson's page with Women in Red either, even though I subscribed to WiR, I did not link Williamson's page to the project or in any connect the two. I didn't use WiR to "support advertisements" and the recently AfD pages which I was recently paid to edit were about a man, Tom Wheelwright, not one of the red-linked women nominated for article creation on WiR.

I will accept whatever judgment is collectively made regarding this page, but I don't think it deserves to be taken down. At the very least there should be some way to fold it into existing articles, rather than just getting rid of it.KoenigWrites (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just went through and fixed the reference list in the article (there are no longer multiple references to the same source or references to wikipedia). Assuming that the article is at all accurate, this woman is most notable for being a mayoral candidate, and general policy is that politicians require significantly more coverage to get an article than non-politicians. Most of the sources are places where she got quoted and identified as the spokesman for an aggrieved party. She may also have done some local advocacy stuff, but I agree that the only local sources do not support notability. Rockphed (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:GNG for her work as an activist but not as a politician. Her Peace Prize win was significant enough that she was the main subject of several articles acknowledging her work as an activist/ founder of the active non-profit San Diego Compassion Project, including the national news article "TCWF Honors Unsung Heroes With 21st Annual California Peace Prize", PR Newswire, 10 September 2013 (the text of which mainly is about Tasha Williamson and her work as an activist) . That in conjunction with all of the news articles already cited in the article are enough to just barely pass WP:GNG. On a side note, it would be helpful to create a notability guideline specifically for activists.4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The subject's notability is borderline but is enough for a start and it's only going to get better, as more is written about her. The arguments about paid editing and WiR are irrelevant as it doesn't matter how we got here; we're just here to consider the subject. Myself, I started the similar page Erica Garner. I don't have any particular axe to grind but my experience there indicates that having such an article is not problematic as it's been quite quiet since the initial fuss. The key policies are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE which indicate that we should prefer a constructive outcome to deletion of all this content and its history. If we wanted to park this in some broader topic then List of African American activists is a possibility but, personally, I think we're better off keeping things as they are – the current version has a reasonably neutral tone and respectable format and it would be significant effort to boil this down into a list entry. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This extremely promotional article needs to be rewritten entirely. I only vouch for the keeping side multiple San Diego-related sources did profiles. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG based on her activist work. There is no requirement for "significant coverage" to include sources from different places. feminist (talk) 05:02, 8 October 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.