Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evita Robinson

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evita Robinson

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

Sources are insufficient to establish WP:GNG and are not RS (includes her bio on her PR firms's website, etc.). DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear Facebook listing, not an article in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Google searches produces nothing to show notability. CBS527^Talk 01:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs a LOT of work, but clearly had sources -- Someone didn't do their WP:BEFORE, she's got a fair bit of coverage in major magazines and web sites. Oxygen is an independent source and fairly major. I also found stuff on her in Ebony (major African American lifestyle magazine), assorted women's and African-American lifestyle sites: Madame Noire (women's site), [1] Black America Web, and other sites serving the African-American and entrepreneurial community:[2], [3], [4]; travel sites: [5], [6] . Plus other random stuff: [7]. This one meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Ebony is RS, I question whether the small blogs and company websites you listed: "She's Wanderful" blog (Alex rank 535,044 [8]), "Brooklyn Buttah" blog (Alexa rank 12,543,151 [9]), "Leisure Group Travel" blog (Alexa rank 1,818,178 [10]), the company website of the PR firm J. Walter Thompson, etc., meet our WP:RS standards for a WP:BLP? DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's so bad that WP:TNT and WP:SPAM applies -- and I've no interest in trying to fix it as it seems sure to be a magnet for more spam. Regardless of whether Montanabw is right about WP:GNG, delete per TNT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Also over the top promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. I can find insufficient reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CA7M. Should I A7 the page?L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.Promocional article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 17 February 2017 (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.