Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakura Saunders: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:37, 4 January 2014

Sakura Saunders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have limited to no notability. Most sources are from little known websites or blogs. Mike (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spent time searching and as nom said found unreliable/minor sources or trivial mentions. There are a lot of search results, so withholding vote to see what others might think or find. - GreenC 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was unimpressed with the references in the article as nominated. But I have since found, and added to the article, citations from multiple Reliable Sources including the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Portland Oregonian, and Yahoo! News. None of these provide extended in-depth coverage, but they are from major news outlets in two countries (Canadian references were already in the article) and IMO they show a high enough profile for her to be considered notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry being mentioned in an article does not make her the subject of it or imply notability. If my famous neighbours house burns down and I give a quote to a major news organization it does not make me notable. Mike (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bornderline notabilioty, and an absurdly overperson article. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 <hr style="width:55%;" />
 *'''Keep''' I was unimpressed with the references in the article as nominated. But I have since found, and added to the article, citations from multiple Reliable Sources including the [[Washington Post]], the [[San Francisco Chronicle]], the Portland [[Oregonian]], and [[Yahoo! News]]. None of these provide extended in-depth coverage, but they are from major news outlets in two countries (Canadian references were already in the article) and IMO they show a high enough profile for her to be considered notable. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
+::sorry being mentioned in an article does not make her the subject of it or imply notability. If my famous neighbours house burns down and I give a quote to a major news organization it does not make me notable. [[User:Mrfrobinson|Mike]] ([[User talk:Mrfrobinson|talk]]) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' bornderline notabilioty, and an absurdly overperson article. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 <hr style="width:55%;" />