Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Bascom (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:18, 15 February 2019

Julia Bascom is an important person to autistic people. The people suggesting this page be deleted are attempting to silence their importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.166.94 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bascom

[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)

See Talk:Julia Bascom for the original reason posted anonymously Ylevental (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable advocate for people with autism. I've added some more sources which show that she has been consulted for the creation of Sesame Street's first autistic character, addressed the UN and more. Her work, which is referenced on the talk page is noticed by others in the field, including the Oxford Handbook on disability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources, appears to be notable. PamD 09:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the improvement to the article by adding more references to reliable sources coverage, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is certainly adequately sourced and the subject is a notable advocate. Valadius (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced well enough. Plenty more sources out there too (as was evident in the last deletion discussion). This article should have been tagged for improvement, not deletion. --Avenue (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *'''Keep''' as per the improvement to the article by adding more references to reliable sources coverage, the subject clearly passes [[WP:GNG]] [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''': This is certainly adequately sourced and the subject is a notable advocate. [[User:Valadius|Valadius]] ([[User talk:Valadius|talk]]) 01:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''': Sourced well enough. Plenty more sources out there too (as was evident in the last deletion discussion). This article should have been tagged for improvement, not deletion. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|talk]]) 07:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)