Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Wolfe (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Wolfe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous AFD on this article and on Dr. Wolfe's company, Wolfe Laboratories See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Laboratories, closed as no consensus, but with discussion of the possibility of merging/redirecting the Janet Wolfe article.

Best sources on this Janet Wolfe I found are[1], [2], and "Wolfe laboratories, Inc.; Janet Wolfe, President of Wolfe Laboratories, Named Boston's Entrepreneur of the Year." (2008). Biotech Business Week 1988.

But today, the New York Times, published an Obituary for another Janet Wolfe, who received substantial coverage in the New Yorker over decades. The New Yorker also wrote about her death today [3], she's also been the subject of a documentary film[4].

Proposal: Delete Janet Wolfe, create new article on the other Janet Wolfe with a hatnote pointed to Wolfe Laboratories, use references listed above regarding the scientist to potentially expand Wolfe Laboratories.

This seemed like the best place to have a wide-ranging discussion on the possibilities here, before taking action. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and blank and start the article on the new person in the same space to preserve the history. Then remove the links in the lab article. No need to even come here, you could have just done that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the best plan. The deletion could have been proposed with the thinking that changing the article to an entirely different person might need deletion to clear up confusion in page histories (not sure if that actually would be the case). If there's not any legitimate concern in that area, blanking is fine. The original Janet Wolfe doesn't appear notable either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Wolfe Laboratories as there's questionable solid notability for a separate article perhaps. Notifying DGG who may be interested with this subject. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make article on the new JW. We can't redirect this to the lab without confusion tho I suppose we could make a hatnote. Nut another reason for ot redirecting to the lab is that I will probably nominate it for deletion as soon as this closes. I know I !voted for keep back in 2008, but I've reconsidered. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 3 January 2016 (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.