Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.117.93.145 (talk) at 13:42, 10 January 2024 (→‎Michele Evans: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michele Evans

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

Michele Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by Escape Orbit as "Self published author, fails notability. Article reads like an autobiography focused on linking to Amazon and Barns and Noble self-published books". Prod removed without explanation here, but like EO I can find no evidence of notability. I don't think any of the sources in the article currently contribute to GNG: they're either by Evans, do not discuss her in depth, or "rumors/gossip". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, the like links were added when the inclusion of the description of the book was contested and were put in place to allow the reader to view them from their origin.
I'm really surprised at the hate Michele is receiving. She is not just an author so deleting based on self publishing assertions fall flat.
Must I provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation?
It is my position you are targeting Michele because of her situation with Sharpe. Which by the way, article after article could be sourced providing these indepth sources which are claimed to be missing.
This article reads as it does because no discussion on Michele is allowed and anything thing not sterile is swiftly deleted. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than WP:SOURCESEXIST, with a bunch of unsupported and completely false theorising about my motives on top. If "article after article ... providing these indepth sources" exists, then provide them. I have looked and I cannot find them, so until some evidence that they actually exist is provided I can only assume that they do not. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't find articles on Michele Evans and Shannon Sharpe?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michele-bundy-accuses-shannon-sharpe-of-sex-assault-cbs-analyst-steps-aside/
https://www.tmz.com/2010/09/17/shannon-sharpe-accuser-michele-bundy-nfl-denver-broncos-relationship-dating-2002/
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/tarnished-twenty/michele-bundy-files-restraining-order-against-shannon-sharpe/
https://www.westword.com/news/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-from-cbs-due-to-restraining-order-see-documents-here-5861925
https://www.tvguide.com/news/shannon-sharpe-sexual-assault-1023089/
https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/09/15/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-of-absence-from-cbs-after-michele-bundy-alleges-sex-assault/
https://nypost.com/2019/09/22/antonio-brown-glued-to-twitter-after-being-sacked-by-patriots/
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/09/14/sharpe-to-take-leave-of-absence-from-cbs/
These are just a few. Assuming is not cool my friend. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post is not reliable, TMZ is questionably reliable, and none of these sources are in depth coverage of Evans which contribute to establishing her notability. If the only reason Evans ever recieved any mention in reliable sources was that she filed for a restraining order against Shannon Sharpe back in 2010, then at best maybe this could be a redirect to Shannon Sharpe#Personal life, except this was clearly so irrelevant that it isn't even mentioned in that article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN RAJU Can't help but notice you added all these. discussion groups but left off Domestic Violence deletion discussion inclusion. Was that because it doesn't exist or because you included only ones you felt were relevant? Please add the Domestic Violence deletion discussion if it exists! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the above sources are SIGCOV in my opinion. In the article, this NY Times article might be but it is locked beyond a paywall. The rest of the sources there are not SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a second look I see the NY Times article is an opinion piece written by her. Alvaldi (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Santa Clara University link to enhance 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Santa Clara University source is not a WP:SIGCOV about Evans. Alvaldi (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including for reference because comments made in discussion DO NOT align with Wikipedia standards: Please refer to bolded text.
Notability requires verifiable evidence
Shortcuts
The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires multible sources of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None have been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for the love of all that is holly. Added 15 reliable sources to the article that are independent of the subject. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if the new 15 are not enough. I'll get more but feel adding more is redundant. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition is what is generally called a WP:REFBOMB. These are all just coverage of the same 2010 case that briefly mention the subject. There is no significant coverage of Evans/Bundy in those sources. Alvaldi (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content is where your position fails. It is in no way a refbomb according to the very definition. To say articles about bundy/evans getting a restraining order against sharpe are just brief mentions is untrue at best. The whole articles are about her. Unless of course, you are reading with biased colored glasses. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michele_Evans&oldid=1194735608"