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.
Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary sources independent of her hereby failing
WP:GNG The article claims a lot of notability for its subject but doesn’t substantiate those claims with reliable sources. In the references provided most are broken links.
Furthermore article is written as though it were a
WP:PROMO &
WP:LARD is strongly observed in this article.
Celestina007 (
talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I should say what I find most disturbing is the heavy
WP:PUFF in the article without provision of inline citations/references to substantiate claims of notability. Clicks on references that look promising all redirect to a dead/broken link.
Celestina007 (
talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Article has been cleaned up and much of the puffery has been removed. It still needs work but with the existing sources as well as coverage found in Google search, subject passes
WP:GNG and meets
WP:BASIC. -
AuthorAuthor (
talk) 06:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Nice one @
AuthorAuthor: , I saw your
WP:C/E work on the article but a more pressing issue is that of reliable sources, could you please provide on this AFD the ones you can find that discusses subject of article with significant coverage and with in-depth. I have searched as per a
WP:BEFORE but could not find any.
Celestina007 (
talk) 15:16 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Puff isn't a reason for delete, nor is clean-up. scope_creepTalk 12:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Scope creep: no
WP:PUFF isn’t a reason to delete an article that’s why the reason I gave was that subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. I mentioned
WP:PUFF as a secondary issue.
Celestina007 (
talk) 15:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Surely you would have seen the significant coverage on the subject. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I don't see much else that needs to be removed, although I'd like to see
deeper coverage about her, which is not in the article yet. She writes for The Hill and has appeared on television, which would make her
marginally notable.
Bearian (
talk) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (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.