Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Chestney (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chestney

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This scrapes over the CCS bar in my view, but still fails GNG. GoldenRing (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She's probably as notable for being a trivial crime victim or NN psychic as anything else (which is not much). Note that this article has been repeatedly hammered by WP:SPA editors trying to promote the subject as well as the CREATE festival, and has been recreated after the previous AFD result of DELETE. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the article talk page, the current article was published during a Women in Red edit-a-thon (or two) in March-April 2016 and has been worked on by numerous editors since. References indicate WP:BASIC met. Hmlarson (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this lend support to a keep? I see that you have canvassed for this AfD [1]. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG based upon the standard of coverage in multiple, independent third-party publications. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence of notability. Most of the sources cited aren't independent, being based on interviews with her; the rest don't mention her. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sources are not adequate to support WP:GNG or WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Rather than deleting the entire article, some of the details could be usefully included in Three Rivers Arts Festival.--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current sourcing is either trivial mentions, or non-secondary sources, or aren't about her at all. Searches turned up nothing of the significant in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Ipigott's merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD has been canvassed [2] [3]. Some of the editors canvassed, including myself, have contributed to this AfD. I see no reason to change my vote. There is nothings to stop edits of Three Rivers Arts Festival but the BLP is meritless and should be salted to stop further recreation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I tried the find the non-neutral canvassing of this Afd in the links provided, but I can't see it. The Women in Red notice is a plain, neutral notice. Could you point out the canvassing in a diff? Thanks! 104.163.153.14 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I see it now, thanks.104.163.153.14 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable person doing a regular promotional job in the arts. The achievements here are run of the mill, and the article serves as promotion. The sources are weak, and puffed up to make her look a lot bigger than she actually is. The use of the term 'artist' is also suspect as there appears to be little professional recognition for her art.104.163.153.14 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly doesn't meet BLP based on a surface reading of the Wikipedia page. I'm not certain CREATE Festival is a notable part of Three Rivers Arts Festival. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per WP:NOTPROMOTION, the extensive WP:CANVASSING, and the failure to meet WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:24, 14 July 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.