Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misee Harris

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 January 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. None of the Keep voters have shown a reasonble refutation of the nomination Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misee Harris

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

A press release, based on press release and tabloid journalism. PRWeb is actually used as a source, and the Huffington Post can sometimes be not much better. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Review of article's sources (none of which were formatted correctly, incidentally):
1. iVillage - online magazine of limited interest (younger adult women)
2. The Grio - self-admitted "niche audience"
3. The Huffington Post -
This reference actually comes from the "Black Voices" division of the newspaper, itself a portion of the multicultural division, not the main newspaper-- I see this as being sufficiently targeted to make it an item of limited interest/ audience. 4. CORE Magazine - online magazine targeted at young African American women ages 12-18
5. Daily Entertainment News - Magazine that seems to be as critical as The Star or Entertainment Weekly, difficult to claim it is a reputable source
6. iReport - Personally, I think that an iReport should never be allowed as a source. iReports are written by the general public, and have no editorial oversight. This might as well be a Facebook page.
7. Florida Courier - Paper of limited circulation (African Americans within the state of Florida.
8. This "source" is a mention of her having donated money for a worthy cause on the web page of that cause. Is not a reference from any kind of news source.
9. This reference is to her official web site. Not a source of reliable information, probably should not be within the article anywhere except the External Links section.
10. Columbia Daily Herald - Another paper of limited local circulation (African Americans in central Tennessee).
11. World Hair Extensions - A news source of limited interest and circulation, and with limited or no editorial oversight
12. PR Web - this is a mention in passing, not an article about her.
13. HLNtv - With its self-described focus on "the 'must-see, must-share' stories of the day", this does not appear to be a reputable news source, only a center for news regurgitation. It's partners are The Gloss and Entertainment Weekly, neither of which is considered much of a reputable news source.
14. WetPaint - this is a website driven by social media like Facebook and Twitter. Not reputable news source.
15. This reference from VIBE Vixen looks like a personal's ad, not a news article. Does not confer notability.
16. Uptown Magazine - Magazine of limited circulation and interest (affluent African Americans living in New York City & environs)
17. Madame Noire - online magazine targeted at black women, focused on reality TV, gossip, etc. Not a reputable source of information
18. Jezebel - Twerking, selvies, Beiber, and more. Not reputable, doesn't want to become that anyway.
In short: I see a lot of mentions in contexts of gossip news and limited interest, and in contexts of broader interest and serious inquiry, only with limited circulation/ audience-- so far. If she goes on to become the first African-American bachlorette or something similar, she will probably warrant a full article; until then, I do not see a case for it given what the article has for sources as outlined above. KDS4444^Talk 07:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a person who is trying to gain notability, but she is still in the press release stage. She may achieve here goals, but she clearly has not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when having a limited publication or limited audience makes a publication, website or magazine an unreliable source?

All these sources are legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.111.216 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequate number of publications to show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --BiH (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty marginal notability, entirely constructed by her PR flacks (aside from the occasional bona-fide edit to strip the junk). I'd have AFDed it myself if I'd realised at the time she never actually _was_ the first black Bachelorette; I left it because I thought that was her claim to notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added and deleted some contents and references in the page as per some observations found here for making it more compatible to Wikipedia. It would be considered now as a notable one. Reviewhome (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Reviewhome has no undeleted edits that aren't to Misee Harris. Some COI, perhaps? Pinkbeast (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure publicity,. no notable accomplishements. Trivial or PR referecings. WP is not a tabloid.I would have reaerded this as clear enough for ap rod, and surprised there is opposition. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, aren't you the nominator? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sufficient reliable sources. I will grudgingly admit that The NY Daily News counts as a reliable source, and about the same for the Huffington Post, but overall, the reference list looks like a desperate attempt to find every possible scrap of notability and hope it somehow adds up to passing WP:GNG. It doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2014 (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.