Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Easthope

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Easthope

[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)

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not given automatic notability freebies just because their writing exists, and have to show external validation of the impact of their work (notable literary awards, third-party evaluation of their work by literary critics, etc.) -- but this just states that she exists, and is referenced entirely to primary sources (a piece of her own bylined writing about something other than herself, and staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations) rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about her work. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Book reviews for When the Dust Settles include: The Sunday Times, Times Literary Supplement, The Week, The Guardian 2, Irish Times, New Statesman, Telegraph, Irish Examiner. Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is also quoted as a "disaster expert" e.g. Brexit delayed pandemic plans says disaster expert (BBC, March 2022), How to be ready for a disaster: an interview with Professor Lucy Easthope (Inside Housing UK, June 2022), Disaster Planner Lucy Easthope on The Ryan Tubridy Show (RTE, March 2022), and there is biographical coverage with interview in the Independent.ie: The disaster plan: Meet the expert who advises on dealing with crises - from fires to wars, terror attacks and the pandemic (April 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted in sources" does not help to establish passage of GNG — notability is not established by sources in which the person is speaking or writing about other things, it's established by sources in which the person is the subject of coverage and analysis being spoken or written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When she is quoted as an expert, the designation of "expert" (or e.g. "the UK's foremost disaster relief adviser") is commentary from the source finding her opinion noteworthy, and could support her notability in combination with other sources per WP:BASIC; and for this subject, WP:NPROF#7 is also potentially supported by interviews in conventional media as an academic expert. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see why the deletion was reasonable, as there being only 3 sources which is all relied on. I would’ve added more but at the time looking for sources would’ve been hard. I found one more book review: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SikiWtideI (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at minimum per WP:BASIC - I also found a review of The Recovery Myth in the Australian Journal of Emergency Management (April 2021) and an announcement of her joining the advisory panel at the Crisis Response Journal, and a 2021 BBC interview describing her as "the UK's foremost disaster relief adviser, Professor Lucy Easthope." Per WP:NEXIST, the article can be developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the numerous book reviews would meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Nomination appears to have failed to perform a proper WP:BEFORE, and initiated a WP:BITEy discussion on a newly created article merely because it was newly-created and had not yet been filled out with all available sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has now been substantially improved and certainly meets sourcing requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much in GS but passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2022 (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.