Deletion of Janet Brumby

Comment: She is not an academic, so  does not apply here.  Receiving an award along with 10 other people that is awarded every year (no matter how famous, notable, or prestigious the award is) does not necessarily confer notability in and of itself (see the Purple Heart discussion above).   applies here, and I don't feel she meets it.  I believe that if there was some non-trivial amount of comprehensive news coverage, then we might have a better chance of meeting notability guidelines.  There are some comments above about her reputation being "trashed", I don't see it being trashed here, we are discussed her notability purely in the context of a Wikipedia article using the definitions and guidelines of Wikipedia - this has nothing to do with her reputation, she seems very reputable, diligent, and hard-working and this is the impression I received from reading the above discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BIO)

Comment: The point of notability guidelines other than  is that they are indications that sources probably exist even if they can't be found online. In the case of this award I find no evidence that its winners generally receive such coverage, so, in the absence of any sources that do any more than show that Janet Brumby received the award, I conclude that she doesn't meet our notability guidelines, and that this award cannot be used as justification of notability without further evidence. Of course this doesn't mean that recipients of the award should be considered unnotable if there is other evidence of notability, but I find it difficult to understand why that issue was brought up in this discussion because there is no other evidence of notability here. The claim that she might meet  is patently absurd, when the only support given for that is that she has rented space on a university campus. Special:Contributions/86.17.222.157|86.17.222.157
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Although the award is notable, it does not follow that being a recipient of the award makes her notable because notability is . Brumby is not an academic because although she works on the university campus, she is not employed by the university in any capacity, let alone an academic one. She has not received significant mention in independent sources and so fails GNG. She is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion#Achievement_in_Enterprise_Promotion_10 already listed in the article listing award winners but she does not have sufficient notability for a separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: There was a link on the talkpage of the article for the award suggesting this was a "test case" for the notability of recipients of the award. That strikes me as an inherently bad idea. The purpose of the award is to confer national recognition on people whose work promoting enterprise in the regional economy is deemed significant. Such work does not universally meet the standards of notability applied here, and if the award is the only national recognition that it gets then it falls under the guideline . However, although each article on a recipient has to be assessed on its own merits, on the basis of the sources available, I would consider the award to create an initial presumption in favour of notability. Over the past year or so I have seen a series of AfDs brought specifically against articles on recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, regardless of how well sourced they were, as though the award conveyed a sort of anti-notability. That really has to stop
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I could only find very very brief mentions in local newspapers: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/news_behind/8423304.Youngsters_get_ahead_in_business/ http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Canny-entrepreneurs-raise-record-race-title/story-15029874-detail/story.html. A long, long way from meeting 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: She's not an academic (despite having an academic employer) and the award is not one for academic accomplishments, so her failure to pass  is not relevant. The more relevant notability criterion appears to be , under which we need nontrivial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other and of her. I don't see that standard being met in this case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: this is a major national award. What  did you perform before  bringing the AFD? All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The award does not confer notability and the subject does not meet any of our guidelines for notability, such as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Firstly, not every person who won some award at some point in their lives is notable under .  Individuals notable under that part of the guideline are typically notable in other parts as well, and that assumes that this is even the correct guideline here, which I'm not convinced it is.  Plenty of people win awards, within academia and without.  What matters in the application of  is not just that the individual ''won some award'', but that the award is significant evidence that the subject has made a notable impact on scholarship.  Given the lack of other supporting evidence of notability under that guideline, I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that this particular award does not convey the kind of scholastic notability that  demands
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC)