Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Perry

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. given the sources found. Please make sure that any worthwhile references that aren't already in the article are moved into it from this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Perry

[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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. Subject has mentions in secondary sources but they are often just part of a list like Forbes 30 Under 30 or ELLE Magazine’s Genius Award. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the best RS I could find about her, [1], basically an extended photo caption under a large photo. Forbes looks promising, but it's an interview... Just not enough sourcing to keep the article at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and that she lacks notability beyond the company SonicEnergy. There was a merge discussion for merging her to the company here, and although the discussion itself was inconclusive, David Gerald had already merged some of the material, so redirect to SonicEnergy is another alternative. Liu1126 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 12 articles she is featured in or the primary subject:

1. USA Today, "The inventor who may kill the power cord": [2]

2. Fortune, "She's an inventor. She's 25. And she wants to make true wireless charging a reality." [3]

3. Fortune, "Is this woman the next elon musk?" [4]

4. NPR, "Young entrepreneur has a better idea, now what?" [5]

5. CNN, 15 Questions with Meredith Perry: [6]

6. Business Insider, "Open letter to Meredith Perry and uBeam": [7]

7. USA Today, "uBeam's Meredith Perry shows her stealth wireless charging technology really works": [8]

8. Fortune, "CEO Meredith Perry explain what uBeam really is": [9]

9. The New York Times, "Wireless Charging, at a distance, moves forward for uBeam": [10]

10. J. Craig Venter Institute, [11]

11. Philadelphia Magazine, "25 Year Old Penn Grad called "Next Elon Musk", [12]

12. The New York Times, "An inventor wants one less wire to worry about." [13] WikiEditor020575 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted per reply above citing 12 articles outside of "mentions in secondary sources and part of lists" WikiEditor020575 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree this should not be deleted per @WikiEditor020575above. The subject meets notability requirements of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPROF. KnowledgeQueen89 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete KnowledgeQueen89 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reviewed the sources provided and I'm not seeing anything that would establish notability as per WP:ANYBIO. Also @KnowledgeQueen89, and @WikiEditor020575 since you both appear to be new to AfD here's a little guide to help you understand the process WP:AFDFORMAT. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
USA Today	Reliable source	Appears to be from an established journalist	~ The article about 40% about her but it's mostly about the company and invention	~ Partial
Fortune Magazine	Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Unknown
Fortune Magazine	Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Unknown
NPR	Public Media	Opinion Article	Article covers the subject and their device	✘ No
CNN	Yes as per WP:RSPSS	~ There is not an author of this article and it's just a list of 15 questions	~ It's 15 questions and no indepth reporting	~ Partial
Business Insider	It appears that this article is independent	~ As per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. Also the article is more of a short form letter or pseudo correction	~ Article is about the subject but also about how the editor at BI underestimated them	~ Partial
USA Today	Reliable source	Appears to be from an established journalist	~ Article covers some of a fraud allegations and is just a revisiting of the previous USA Today article	~ Partial
Fortune Magazine	Unable to determine if this source is independent or if they included this topic because they had just published an article on the subject	~ Interview doesn't appear to be in-depth and is only covering the device without indepth reporting on the subject	~ The article about 40% about her but it's mostly about the company and invention	? Unknown
New York Times	NYT is a reliable source	NYT is a reliable source	The article is about the device, the subject is only mentioned in the first two paragraphs	✘ No
J. Craig Venter Institute	Just a profile for a non-profit	Just a profile for a non-profit	Just a profile for a non-profit	✘ No
Philadelphia	Appears to have some independent content	Article is three paragraphs talking about them appearing in another magazine	Article is three paragraphs talking about them appearing in another magazine	✘ No
New York Times	NYT is a reliable source	NYT is a reliable source	Article goes in-depth about the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep – Source table above is quite helpful. NYT is strong. An additional search on Google News brings up a bunch of good sources inc. Techcrunch, so notability is met IMO. TLA (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source table above. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 16 January 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.