- 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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Kayleigh McEnany
- Kayleigh McEnany ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD, there:s no inherited notability and frankly nothing at all actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete (and ideally, redirect to a new list, surrogates for Donald Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election.) There are so many mediocre sources about her that it's hard to tell if strong sources exist; I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if there are in fact good, complete sources that provide the background for a reasonable bio. However, it would be worthwhile for a Wikipedia reader to be able to find a basic answer to the question "who is Kayleigh Mcenany?" A list could address that neatly (for her and for others). - Pete ( talk) 23:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- comment after reviewing prior AFD: That was 4 years ago. As a prominent (daily?) Trump surrogate on CNN, her notability has surely increased in the last year. I don't know that she's had the kind of coverage that would merit a WP bio, but she's certainly closer now than she was when the previous AFD took place. - Pete ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't delete. Face it. However much you may dislike the fact, she clearly meets the notability criteria. She is prominently mentioned in a Washington post article
[1]. Clearly a very strong source. The notability standard also states that many less strong sources can make up for the lack of stronger sources. She also appears in well over a hundred sources in all. I got 563 hits on Google Books. She appears often on a major network. You may not like, and you may not like her, but that is not the standard. She is notable.
Tesint (
talk)
04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not the standard--the standard is there be significant discussion in reliable sources of the subject. Drmies ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment She's in the news a lot. I added some sources and took out the unsourced (and biased) material and moved it to the talk page. Hopefully that will help anyone trying to make a decision about her. I'm on the fence, myself, about her notability. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I have several more articles that talk about McEnany:
- http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/10/dana-loesch-torches-trump-mouth-piece-kayleigh-mcenany-n2160652
- http://www.law.miami.edu/news/2014/july/classroom-newsroom-rising-2l-kayleigh-mcenany-appears-tv-guest-political-commentator
- https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/kayleigh-mcenany-trump-tailored-message-to-blacks-white-rally/
- Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article to demonstrate notability. As it sits, she's not terribly notable other than for her employer, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. That said, if the article is actually improved, I'm willing to consider changing my vote. Montanabw (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Megalibrarygirl's and Yoshiman's sources should probably be discussed, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another pundit who shows up on TV, but who isn't significant enough to have received decent coverage and in-depth discussion. From the cited articles one could construct a three-page biography, at the best; the additionally listed sources here don't do much better. The Townhall.com article is nothing but a brief comment on a video placed on a conservative website, the MiamiLaw article has content but is not a newspaper (it's an alumni magazine, basically), and the Raw Story article is nothing but commentary on a TV appearance by the subject. Plus, it's Raw Story. So, no--this doesn't help. Drmies ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Response to latest "Delete"
Wikipedia Notability Standard:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
Nothing that Drmies writes refutes any of the sources provided by Yoshiman. The notability standard says nothing against a brief comment - that does not make it trivial. There is no requirement that a source be a newspaper. There nothing against "Raw Story". So, by the standard, it does help, however unnecessary it might be, because she would be notable anyway. Tesint ( talk) 21:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
From the deletion criteria: "When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." OK. We have gone way longer than seven days. There is clearly no consensus for deletion. It is time for this discussion to be closed and for the "nominated for speedy deletion banner to be removed." Tesint ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Further, from the speedy deletion criteria: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Tesint ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The coverage is very minor. The notability standard certainly says something about a brief comment: it requires "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail " Before making claims about what WP:N says, it helps to actually read it. In detail. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (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.
- 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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Kayleigh McEnany
- Kayleigh McEnany ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD, there:s no inherited notability and frankly nothing at all actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- delete (and ideally, redirect to a new list, surrogates for Donald Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election.) There are so many mediocre sources about her that it's hard to tell if strong sources exist; I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if there are in fact good, complete sources that provide the background for a reasonable bio. However, it would be worthwhile for a Wikipedia reader to be able to find a basic answer to the question "who is Kayleigh Mcenany?" A list could address that neatly (for her and for others). - Pete ( talk) 23:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- comment after reviewing prior AFD: That was 4 years ago. As a prominent (daily?) Trump surrogate on CNN, her notability has surely increased in the last year. I don't know that she's had the kind of coverage that would merit a WP bio, but she's certainly closer now than she was when the previous AFD took place. - Pete ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Don't delete. Face it. However much you may dislike the fact, she clearly meets the notability criteria. She is prominently mentioned in a Washington post article
[1]. Clearly a very strong source. The notability standard also states that many less strong sources can make up for the lack of stronger sources. She also appears in well over a hundred sources in all. I got 563 hits on Google Books. She appears often on a major network. You may not like, and you may not like her, but that is not the standard. She is notable.
Tesint (
talk)
04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not the standard--the standard is there be significant discussion in reliable sources of the subject. Drmies ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment She's in the news a lot. I added some sources and took out the unsourced (and biased) material and moved it to the talk page. Hopefully that will help anyone trying to make a decision about her. I'm on the fence, myself, about her notability. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I have several more articles that talk about McEnany:
- http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/05/10/dana-loesch-torches-trump-mouth-piece-kayleigh-mcenany-n2160652
- http://www.law.miami.edu/news/2014/july/classroom-newsroom-rising-2l-kayleigh-mcenany-appears-tv-guest-political-commentator
- https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/kayleigh-mcenany-trump-tailored-message-to-blacks-white-rally/
- Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone wants to do a WP:HEY and improve the article to demonstrate notability. As it sits, she's not terribly notable other than for her employer, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. That said, if the article is actually improved, I'm willing to consider changing my vote. Montanabw (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Megalibrarygirl's and Yoshiman's sources should probably be discussed, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another pundit who shows up on TV, but who isn't significant enough to have received decent coverage and in-depth discussion. From the cited articles one could construct a three-page biography, at the best; the additionally listed sources here don't do much better. The Townhall.com article is nothing but a brief comment on a video placed on a conservative website, the MiamiLaw article has content but is not a newspaper (it's an alumni magazine, basically), and the Raw Story article is nothing but commentary on a TV appearance by the subject. Plus, it's Raw Story. So, no--this doesn't help. Drmies ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Response to latest "Delete"
Wikipedia Notability Standard:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
Nothing that Drmies writes refutes any of the sources provided by Yoshiman. The notability standard says nothing against a brief comment - that does not make it trivial. There is no requirement that a source be a newspaper. There nothing against "Raw Story". So, by the standard, it does help, however unnecessary it might be, because she would be notable anyway. Tesint ( talk) 21:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
From the deletion criteria: "When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." OK. We have gone way longer than seven days. There is clearly no consensus for deletion. It is time for this discussion to be closed and for the "nominated for speedy deletion banner to be removed." Tesint ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Further, from the speedy deletion criteria: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Tesint ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The coverage is very minor. The notability standard certainly says something about a brief comment: it requires "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail " Before making claims about what WP:N says, it helps to actually read it. In detail. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (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.