The result was no consensus. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS 💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html | Newspaper of record | ✔ Yes | ||
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851 | ~ Basically just quotes. | ~ Rather short section of the article. | ~ Partial | |
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/ | Routine. | ✘ No | ||
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 | paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2 | ? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine? | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
just quotesand SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS 💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html | Newspaper of record | ✔ Yes | ||
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851 | ~ Basically just quotes. | ~ Rather short section of the article. | ~ Partial | |
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/ | Routine. | ✘ No | ||
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 | paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2 | ? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine? | ✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
just quotesand SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)