Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Rockelle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:49, 30 September 2021

Piper Rockelle

[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)

This article is about a non-notable "influencer" that was apparently accepted from AfC and then marked as reviewed at NPP, when it clearly was not in a state to be accepted, by NagalimNE. I tried searching for sources, as the ones in the article are merely trivial coverage, run-of-the-mill or otherwise entirely unreliable, and all that I could find was more run-of-the-mill coverage on minor incidents that do not establish notability per WP:BASIC. Also fails WP:ENT. Java Hurricane 07:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did a quick google news search where I saw a good number of reliable sources that's why I accepted it. NagalimNE (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are reliable sources or significant coverage; most are run-of-the-mill sources which do not qualify as significant coverage. Java Hurricane 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see many sources which are indepth and reliable like the Business Insider and La Vanguardia source. NagalimNE (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are precisely what I called as "run-of-the-mill" coverage. It does not impart notability. Java Hurricane 09:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NagalimNE: If this is the case, then you should've added those sources before you accepted the article. L33tm4n (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of churn in sources, but not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor WP:RS, not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Explicit|<span style="color:#000000">✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%">plicit</span>]] 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Piper Rockelle]]</noinclude></div>
 *'''Delete''' per nom. Lots of churn in sources, but not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. — [[User:Mikehawk10|Mikehawk10]] ([[User talk:Mikehawk10 |talk]]) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Poor [[WP:RS]], not notable. [[User:Gentleman wiki|Gentleman wiki]] ([[User talk:Gentleman wiki|talk]]) 18:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)