The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) are candiditates for deletion.
WP:BIO The article fails the basic tenants of WP:BIO as the subject of this article has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, nor has been nominated for one several times. The subject of this article has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field.
It is claimed that she is a media personality, but the only verifiable links provided suggest she is a newspaper reporter.The articles that are referenced were written about other people by her, not about her. The link provided at ( http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.
As a journalist, she doesn't meet any of the criteria required of Creative professionals. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.
It is suggested in this article that she is notable because she is the partner of News Limited Chief Executive, John Hartigan. However, Relationships do not confer notability. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited)
WP:N It may be suggested that she is nonetheless notable, despite this. WP:N requires verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.
The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
The evidence provided through links to her page do not show that she has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. The articles referenced were, in the main, written by her and were published in the herald sun. This is clearly self promotion, and is not objective evidence supporting a claim of notability. The link provided at ( http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.
WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
The material as used in this article violate clauses 1 and 5. Most of the references used in the article were written by the subject and as such, the article is primairliy based on these sources. Furthermore, the article is prima facie self serving.
WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.As such, content hosted on wikipedia is not for Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Given the nature of this article, and the fact that most of the references are written by the subject of the article, it is clear that it is a tool for self pormotion, and that WP:SOAPS has been violated.
Conclusion Given that WP:BIO, WP:N , WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOAPS have been vilated in this instance, I argue that it is in the interests of wikipedia to delete this page. JusticeSonic ( talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
— JusticeSonic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB ( talk) 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) are candiditates for deletion.
WP:BIO The article fails the basic tenants of WP:BIO as the subject of this article has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, nor has been nominated for one several times. The subject of this article has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field.
It is claimed that she is a media personality, but the only verifiable links provided suggest she is a newspaper reporter.The articles that are referenced were written about other people by her, not about her. The link provided at ( http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.
As a journalist, she doesn't meet any of the criteria required of Creative professionals. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.
It is suggested in this article that she is notable because she is the partner of News Limited Chief Executive, John Hartigan. However, Relationships do not confer notability. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited)
WP:N It may be suggested that she is nonetheless notable, despite this. WP:N requires verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.
The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
The evidence provided through links to her page do not show that she has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. The articles referenced were, in the main, written by her and were published in the herald sun. This is clearly self promotion, and is not objective evidence supporting a claim of notability. The link provided at ( http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.
WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
The material as used in this article violate clauses 1 and 5. Most of the references used in the article were written by the subject and as such, the article is primairliy based on these sources. Furthermore, the article is prima facie self serving.
WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.As such, content hosted on wikipedia is not for Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Given the nature of this article, and the fact that most of the references are written by the subject of the article, it is clear that it is a tool for self pormotion, and that WP:SOAPS has been violated.
Conclusion Given that WP:BIO, WP:N , WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOAPS have been vilated in this instance, I argue that it is in the interests of wikipedia to delete this page. JusticeSonic ( talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
— JusticeSonic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB ( talk) 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply