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.
Delete - The article is essentially just a PR/spam piece promoting the individual who doesn't meet
WP:NACTOR in her own right, and hasn't done much as a model. The soruces provided above and those available in the article are nothing more than tabloid gossip-style coverage. The creator appears to have UPE issues as well based on some outer-wiki evidence.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete does not satisfy GNG. There are zero RS that provide more than a handful of sentences. (both in the article and above) wumbolo^^^10:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources provided above only give some superficial gossip-style coverage, not the in-depth coverage needed to satisfy GNG. --
Randykitty (
talk)
13:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject and as Randykitty said above rest of the soruces only give some superficial gossip-style coverage, not the in-depth coverage that required to satisfy GNG.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
16:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Interviews are in fact in-depth coverage by independent sources as it was the independent source that chose to interview the topic, further demonstrating notability. If it was as self-published interview, then it wouldn't be independent. Not the case here. But even without the interview coverage there is still very in-depth coverage by very reliable sources. --
Oakshade (
talk)
19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further analysis of the sources in question would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
talk)
15:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. The sources used to establish notability here are not satisfactory so better delete. --
Saqib (
talk)
17:21, 28 August 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.
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.
Delete - The article is essentially just a PR/spam piece promoting the individual who doesn't meet
WP:NACTOR in her own right, and hasn't done much as a model. The soruces provided above and those available in the article are nothing more than tabloid gossip-style coverage. The creator appears to have UPE issues as well based on some outer-wiki evidence.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete does not satisfy GNG. There are zero RS that provide more than a handful of sentences. (both in the article and above) wumbolo^^^10:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources provided above only give some superficial gossip-style coverage, not the in-depth coverage needed to satisfy GNG. --
Randykitty (
talk)
13:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject and as Randykitty said above rest of the soruces only give some superficial gossip-style coverage, not the in-depth coverage that required to satisfy GNG.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
16:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Interviews are in fact in-depth coverage by independent sources as it was the independent source that chose to interview the topic, further demonstrating notability. If it was as self-published interview, then it wouldn't be independent. Not the case here. But even without the interview coverage there is still very in-depth coverage by very reliable sources. --
Oakshade (
talk)
19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further analysis of the sources in question would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
talk)
15:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. The sources used to establish notability here are not satisfactory so better delete. --
Saqib (
talk)
17:21, 28 August 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.