Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara McGowan

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. Complete Keep Consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara McGowan

[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)

This person does not meet the requirements for notability. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Acronym (political organization). I'm not seeing standalone notability, but a redirect is an obvious WP:ATD and probably should have been considered before bringing to AFD. Hug^syrup 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Astrophobe. There are enough good sources there - apologies, I either missed those when I looked, or I scanned them too quickly and misinterpreted them as being primarily about the company and not the individual. But I agree, there are sufficient articles that focus in depth on McGowan herself. Hug^syrup 17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: I think this is definitely not your fault -- I did a pretty sizable revision, including adding some sources, after you posted your comment. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Short version: this is a WP:BLP with 26 (!) WP:RS in the references, including several strong WP:RSP, and it could easily have more. Long version: The article's subject -- not Acronym, but specifically McGowan -- has been the primary subject of what the New York Times referred to as "glowing profiles": this Ozy profile is a full magazine profile of her, and this Politico piece is explicitly framed around covering McGowan. Coverage which is nominally focused on her company is often substantially about her too. Long pieces by various perennial sources, like this Bloomberg piece and this New Yorker piece, are framed entirely around McGowan, not Acronym. Other pieces include long sections on her, like this Atlantic piece. These are not pieces about Acronym with incidental coverage of McGowan. Third, incidental coverage of her is just exceptionally high-volume. She has been quoted, or actions by her have been covered, in major news outlets so often that it's hard to pick which ones to include in the article without introducing a WP:OVERCITE problem -- not a normal issue for a WP:BLP that doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Just do a simple Google news search for "Tara McGowan" and you will see pages and pages of results that either quote her or make reference to her, easily dozens of them from strong perennial sources. Finally, she has several accolades, which is not typical for a behind-the-scenes campaign strategist. She won the only dedicated award in that profession that I'm aware of, which is the Campaigns & Elections Magazine Rising Star award. She was also called a "Name to know" by Politico, as well as numerous other descriptors referred to in the article. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than adequately sourced to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is actually pretty well sourced - shouldn't be tagged with "ref improve" IMO either. I fail to see how this was actually a legitimate candidate for "AFD"??? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously notable, well-sourced bio - it might need some clean-up, but not even severe enough that really warrants a tag. The current tags are unnecessary. Kingsif (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with extreme prejudice. Was a WP:BEFORE even attempted here? The subject of the article is covered by several WP:INDEPTH articles!!! XavierItzm (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2020 (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.