Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilly Smith (3rd nomination)

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. Consensus is to Keep here, even the Weak Delete !vote said the article is well sourced. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Smith

[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)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Ms Smith is notable for only one event, is an otherwise low profile individual, and even the event itself isn't that significant. Merge with main Tsunami article if preferred, but it certainly doesn't warrant an individual article about her. FirefoxLSD (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting BLPIE, "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Saving the lives of 100 people in a tsunami is significant in itself. Furthermore Tilly Smith continues to be presented as a role model by, for example the United Nations (2011) and a book published by OUP (2009). Her role was significant not only for the event itself but by the inspiration it later gave others.[1][2][3] Notable both for news coverage of her role at the time and for much later use of her story to inspire others. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added more sources to the article, as well as moving 'Sources' to inline citations. Smith's story has been told in books and articles published in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2018 - at least. It is used to teach about types of natural disasters, disaster preparedness, and to advocate for the importance of teaching geography. She shows no signs of being forgotten 14 years after the disaster - her role at the time was significant for the 100 or so people saved, and she has since become a role model for education about disasters. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There isn't any doubt that the account is well sourced, but nevertheless this doesn't seem to be particularly notable, more than a decade after the event. Those sources don't add anything new to the account - they just retell the same event again and again. Even at the time, I recall that it was debated whether she actually saved 100 people, as opposed to giving the warning to a few, resulting in the evacuation. Firefox's claim that she isn't notable at all seems a little outlandish, but equally her notability was very much something of the time. Since then she has fallen into obscurity, and the newer news articles don't add anything. In two of the three sources Houseofchange lists, she is given a cursory mention: not enough to warrant notability.TeddyBiffles (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TeddyBiffles:: Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Per WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The United Nations and Oxford University Press are independent and reliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Has anyone checked for Thai language sources on the subject? That may be relevant to this AfD. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I might be persuaded to redirect or merge to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, neither of which involves AFD. I'm very unpersuaded by the thought that "the event itself isn't that significant" whether the event was the tsunami itself or Smith's taking action that may have saved a hundred lives. Without this the BLP1E conditions for deletion do not seem to be met. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And if you check out 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, check out the link to our article on John Chroston, whose article has never been AfDed because why would you AfD an article about a hero who has a lot of news stories about him? Yes, OTHERSTUFF exists, but ask yourself if it has been worth Wikipedia's time and effort to mount three separate debates about Tilly Smith? This is the kind of discrepancy that gives us a bad reputation. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure she is mentioned at the Science Museum which covers earthquakes and tsunamis. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, but I don't believe the argument for deletion is convincing. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2018 (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.