Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Barclay

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 December 19.
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 speedy delete for procedural reasons per WP:R2. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Barclay

[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)

I can't see how this article meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The references are from sources of unclear reliability that all report on her posting of abuse and homophobia on her Facebook page (many of which have no authors and seem like press releases). ... discospinster _talk 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since none of the sources listed in the article are documentary or reliable, so notability is not met.--NicolaArangino (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual in question has not achieved significant notability on their own, often seeking involvement with already established personalities to gain recognition. However, even with these associations, they have not garnered notable attention, as sources primarily report on controversies, with the focus being on the established figures rather than the individual in question. Other references appear to be merely press releases and headlines purportedly purchased by the individual mentioned in the entry.--Moniiquedecastro (talk) 23:37, 07 May 2024 (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.