The result was delete. Despite the additional references provided in this discussion, it was determined that they do not meet the standard of significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject needed to establish notability. ✗ plicit 03:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is not "person who has a job", but "person whose work in their job has been externally validated as significant by independent third party sources". But of the just four distinct footnotes being cited here (one of which is redundantly reduplicated five times for the deceptive appearance of nine footnotes), three are her own staff profiles on the
self-published websites of her own employers, which are not support for notability, and the last is a
blog entry covering her not in the context of any potential notability claims as a journalist, but solely in the context of her wedding -- which means that absolutely none of the footnotes actually represent proper support for her notability as a journalist, because the only one that's independent of her is about her personal life rather than her work.
This was created in September, then moved to draftspace the next day on the grounds that it wasn't adequately sourced, but then was arbitrarily moved back to mainspace yesterday by a relatively new editor with a claim that she "meets GNG" without actually showing any GNG-worthy sources (which, again, absolutely none of the footnotes currently shown here are) to substantiate that she would meet GNG. So the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all, but since it's already been move-warred over I don't see the value in just redraftifying it again.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the additional references provided in this discussion, it was determined that they do not meet the standard of significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject needed to establish notability. ✗ plicit 03:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is not "person who has a job", but "person whose work in their job has been externally validated as significant by independent third party sources". But of the just four distinct footnotes being cited here (one of which is redundantly reduplicated five times for the deceptive appearance of nine footnotes), three are her own staff profiles on the
self-published websites of her own employers, which are not support for notability, and the last is a
blog entry covering her not in the context of any potential notability claims as a journalist, but solely in the context of her wedding -- which means that absolutely none of the footnotes actually represent proper support for her notability as a journalist, because the only one that's independent of her is about her personal life rather than her work.
This was created in September, then moved to draftspace the next day on the grounds that it wasn't adequately sourced, but then was arbitrarily moved back to mainspace yesterday by a relatively new editor with a claim that she "meets GNG" without actually showing any GNG-worthy sources (which, again, absolutely none of the footnotes currently shown here are) to substantiate that she would meet GNG. So the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all, but since it's already been move-warred over I don't see the value in just redraftifying it again.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891
Talk
Work
19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)