Feminista Jones: To begin with, the article's tone is highly promotional and not in line with Wikipedia's objective and neutral tone.  This issue is further exacerbated by the inappropriate usage and selection of references throughout the article.  Among the references, the first one [1] includes two articles that offer only a single quote from Jones in each, which is insufficient to establish notability.  Moreover, the second source [2] is written by a lifelong friend of the subject, further highlighting the potential for bias.  Numerous other references come from local news outlets that merely interview her or mention her tweets and works [3][4][5][6][14][20][22].  As a result, these references fail to qualify as secondary sources , which are necessary for establishing notability according to WP:BIO .  Additionally, some of the cited references are self-published articles [11][16], search queries [8][12][13], or portfolios written by Jones herself [15].  Two of these references are dead links [7][9].  Based on my current knowledge of Wikipedia's policies on source usage, particularly for living persons, the majority of these references do not support the subject's notability as per WP:NOTABILITY .  Furthermore, the article's reliance on primary sources indicates a potential conflict of interest, undermining the unbiased nature expected of a biographical article on Wikipedia.  Therefore, I argue that, in its current state, this article is not suited for inclusion on the platform.  Xelapilled ( talk ) 09:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women ,  and New York .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Jones has been covered by several major English-language press outlets.  While I'm generally opposed to using these on Wikipedia at all my understanding is that Wikipedia policy still entails that major English-language press outlets are reliable sources.  As such there is a preponderance of reliable sources (such as the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) that indicate she is a notable figure in her field.  Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree the nom has correctly identified a number of problems with the article, but in terms of notability, she's been quoted often in a number of scholarly papers as a well-known activist.  I haven't done a source search to see if she's been significantly covered elsewhere because I'm convinced WP:GNG is met on that alone.  Problems with the article can be rectified through clean-up, not through deletion.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was too quick to call for an AfD because you are right, there are actual sources to support her on Wikipedia, they just aren't in her article.  I guess I just didn't really do much besides look at the article in its current state, review the references, and wonder why the article exists (assume it's promotional, because there's a lot of that around right now).  In the future I will try to be more careful and add warning templates to highlight that the article may need attention.  Is there a way to close my own AfD discussion?  Xelapilled ( talk ) 20:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Xelapilled .  There is a way.  See WP:CLOSEAFD , "Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)".  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 20:55, 14 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep