Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lea Black

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.

The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Miami. $Salvio$ 10:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Black

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the context of The Real Housewives of Miami; the sole such source currently cited is [1], a local publication of dubious reliability. I would suggest that we redirect to that article. Searching online, I wasn't able to find coverage other than trivial pieces in tabloids, although given the nature of the subject it's possible that something more useful may have been crowded out in search results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did the best i can to find sources relating to Lea Black. I don't understand why the article Lea Black is about to be deleted? Tell me what do I have to do to improve this? Ceedub88 05:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some subjects just aren't notable, even if you did your best. At the end of the day, we have to depend on what's available in reliable, independent sources. If we don't have at least 3 or 4 solid examples of significant coverage of a subject in their own right, we have no business creating a standalone article for them. That having been said, reliable sources that collectively fall short of GNG may still be usable to expand The Real Housewives of Miami. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as per Rosguill. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she has any notability outside the show.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Independent" you mean websites with real sources that you trust, not the ones that are filled with fake information and fake sites with tabloids? Ceedub88 02:50, 21 August 2020 2020 (UTC)

"WP:Independent sources" means that the source isn't written by the subject herself, or someone associated with her. Anything published by the producers of the show, for example, wouldn't be independent. Nor would her LinkedIn profile, because she writes that herself. Interviews generally aren't considered independent, either. A website like Pikastar might be independent (or it might just publish info from her publicist), but even if it is, it's probably not a "WP:Reliable source". Sources used to establish notability must be both independent and reliable. pburka (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So where could I find a reliable source that was written by her or her publicist? Perhaps maybe can we ask her herself? Ceedub88 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2020 (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.