Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Vita-More

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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Natasha Vita-More

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Natasha Vita-More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I'd expect much more from an article that existed since 2006, but this looks like an average paid promo (through it is not, considering the age and creator, just shares the usual low quality red flags, including the subject editing it herself at some point: Natasha Vita-More (talk · contribs), as well as edits by a likely undisclosed paid editor Bmrg567 (talk · contribs) a few years ago. PS. No objections to drafitying this or moving this to userspace of the linked Wikipedian, who does occasionally edit the project. It would make a nice userpage, even if it fails, IMHO, the notability criteria for a regular article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral Probable keep. There do seem to be a lot of news hits and book hits, so I suspect fixable. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Change to probable keep; the more I look, the more I find. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hyperbolick: Anything you found you'd like to bring here for consideration? Since the article has not been expanded with a single source since the nom started.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Piotrus: Substantial piece from last year in Le Temps. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Hyperbolick: Thanks, it looks good. Can you throw one more piece of similar quality at me? I will withdraw if two good sources are shown (two satisfies the GNG requirement of multiple, IMHO :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Hmmm. Profiled in Transhumanism: Engineering the Human Condition, by Roberto Manzocco, Springer, 2009, p. 65-66. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Natasha Vita-More is well-known in Transhumanism circles, so there will always be more and better sources to add. Occasionally notable people, from rock stars to members of Congress, do get caught editing their own articles, or hiring others to do so. This does not affect their notability one way or the other. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We do need, you know, sources... WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a very helpful argument. Which soruces say she is well-known, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Withdraw. Hyperbolick presented two sources which seem sufficient to confirm the subject passes NBIO, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.