Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Axsmith

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. Star Mississippi 13:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Axsmith

[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)

Textbook WP:BIO1E. Was in the news for one blog post that got her fired in 2006. No notability as defined in WP:BIO, such as WP:SUSTAINED otherwise. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Barely scrapes by GNG either way. C F A 💬 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:BIO1E. Axsmith's notability stems from a single incident: her firing following a 2006 blog post. There has yet to be the kind of steady coverage that shows a broader notability. There are also no writings or citations related to her work. Thus, the article does not meet WP:BIO. The lack of sustained coverage or impact in her field supports the case for deletion. It's crucial to remember that this platform's content focuses on subjects that have lasting significance.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a writer for Daily Kos now, but that's not terribly notable. The firing got into the news cycle almost 20 yrs ago, but nothing since. I don't see sustained notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that this is a case of WP:BIO1E due to a lack of sustained coverage. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't have enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she's notable. The current information is too sparse to meet WP:N. Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being a classic BLP1E issue, I don’t see a level of specific evidence that she passes WP:SIGCOV or my own standards for notable lawyers. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is indeed known only for a single event. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (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.