Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Bolding

Hayley Bolding

[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)

Poorly-referenced promotional article. Non-notable person who founded non-notable organization. Hardly any information about her other than profiles such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and associated websites. She is supposedly "2013 Australian of the Year", but the on the list of Australian of the Year Award recipients, Ita Buttrose is the recipient. Must be two different awards, and Bolding's award is less-notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - she was nominated for Young Australian of the Year (not Australian of the Year), and she didn't win. Instead, she was named Young Victorian of the Year (a lesser honour). By virtue of that win, she was automatically nominated for Young Australian of the Year. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I don't think the award makes her notable, and making it sound like something it isn't is just dishonest. Of the three references that can remain (I trimmed the ones that were hard-links to things unrelated to her and the like) we have a couple of instances of local coverage (the most substantive from her home town) and an "also" paragraph in a publication from India (that I am not familiar with). There's something there, but not enough to get over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article doesn't—in its current state—satisfy WP:GNG. But, per other editors, there does appear to be something there. With further development, there may be a stronger indication of notability. I think that makes a reasonable case for WP: FLEXIBILITY. I'd support retaining the article for now. In the event that the article fails to develop a better indication of notability, it'd be a strong candidate for a future AfD. -- Ex Parte ^talk 06:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]