Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoë Soul: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:47, 2 December 2014

Zoë Soul

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources does not meet the inclusion criteria (even WP:ANYBIO), and qualifies for deletion.

It may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article on 'Zoe Soul'. Well, there are some coverage of her, but they are all commentary of the subject about themselves, i.e interviews, hence can't considered independent and contribute to establish notability of the subject.

Yahoo celebrity search engine doesn't produce even a single result for the subject ([1]). I'm not here saying that Yahoo determines notability on Wikipedia, but it at least gives us an idea about. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Would anyone looking at her career feel that WP:ENT is verifiable? if so, this may be less a matter of Too Soon and finally one of Just Soon Enough for a suitable stub to remain and be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there before I decided to bring the article to afd. I think, it is borderline (only #1 of WP:NACTOR?). Because if they've had the significant role in multiple films, tv shows, etc., why are they not independently written about the same in multiple reliable sources. They appear to be notable for The Purge: Anarchy film, but again, here all we got are interviews (not independent). The idea of 'hidden sources' does not look me that much promising for USA.

My actual concerns are, are we going to write an article entirely based on affiliated/unreliable sources? I have had mind make-up that if someone shows me here two or three secondary, independent and reliable sources that might help to write a stub, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that she owns the reliable sources that made the editorial decisions to interview her? Or that she owns the production companies that put her in her many projects? My thought here is that if independent sources asked the questions, then the attention was on her by them... oversight evidenced by their reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and such. In other words, if/when media interviews Obama and he responds, would media coverage of their interview also be considered non-independent? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:11, 1 December 2014 edit Anupmehra (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 23,094 edits comment//may also serve as my response to the earlier comment made// ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:47, 2 December 2014 edit undo MichaelQSchmidt (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 60,150 edits →Zoë Soul: oh? Next edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:

	::My actual concerns are, are we going to write an article entirely based on affiliated/unreliable sources? I have had mind make-up that if someone shows me here two or three secondary, independent and reliable sources that might help to write a stub, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. [[User:Anupmehra\|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:black">Anupmehra</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Anupmehra\|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 09:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)		::My actual concerns are, are we going to write an article entirely based on affiliated/unreliable sources? I have had mind make-up that if someone shows me here two or three secondary, independent and reliable sources that might help to write a stub, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. [[User:Anupmehra\|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:black">Anupmehra</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Anupmehra\|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 09:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

			:::Are you implying that she owns the [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]] that made the editorial decisions to interview her? Or that she owns the production companies that put her in her many projects? My thought here is that if independent sources asked the questions, then the [[WP:GNG\|attention]] was on her by them... oversight evidenced by their reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and such. In other words, if/when media interviews Obama and he responds, would media coverage of their interview also be considered non-independent? '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt\|<font color="blue">Schmidt, </font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt\|<sup><small>Michael Q.</small></sup>]]'' 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)