Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Justine Tunney


 * 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. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)'''.

Justine Tunney
Only borderline notable on the English Wikipedia, but all the quotes are sourced from Twitter and one other primary source, which are available nowhere else. Vanity page in my view. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Vote closes: 13:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Guardian is picking up some of this softie's Tweets, but I haven't checked if they refer to the one's in this article. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 13:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Djm-leighpark I just checked, they are a bit related but different quotes. But I don't feel like rewriting the article to the quotes from the article. Or must that be considered before deletion? It won't become a great article due to marginal notability anyway. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete both for non-notability (just because someone has a twitter account does not mean they are important) and, per the nomination, looks very much like self-promotion. Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep  — this person had been accepted as sufficiently notable as both a software developer and social activist to have had articles both here and at Wikipedia since 2014. The above comments specify an article in a major newspaper dealing with some statements such as were quoted on her page, and she seems to have indeed been prominent as an activist and a software engineer. Though I doubt much growth or wide interest in the page, I certainly perceive no evidence that she is actually, the creator of the article, who has been an active Wikipedia contributor since 2003, so labeling it merely "self promotion” or a "vanity page” seems a rather ludicrous and entirely unwarranted assumption. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't feel strongly about this page, but I agree with the arguments put forth by Kalki. I don't see a need for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I still think that the page should be deleted. Let's base the argument on our guidelines here, WQ:Q. The 6th factor is "Is the quote independently well known? Has it withstood, or is it likely to withstand, the test of time?". That is surely not the case with any quotes on the acutal page and not with either quotes in news articles authored by her. She was quoted in a handful of newspapers but those quotes were never repeated by 3rd parties again in a context where she wasn't the one who directly spoke them. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: An anon IP (? from Holland) has disrupted the article by removing content, at least using a summary but without actually citing policy or guideline. That said simply citing a tweet without a supporting secondary source is actually not appropriate here.  I have been moved to add a quote from the Guardian/Hern and in that state I believe a simples w:WP:HEY has been achieved and I feel keep is appropriate and that the change also addresses the concerns of the delete votes. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.