Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Catena

Marina Catena

[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)

WP:N WP:NOTPROMO Raider1918 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is somewhat promotional and needs to be trimmed back to the bones, but there are some sources which seem to indicate that she might be notable enough. [1] [2] [3]. - Mr X 🖋 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This entry is in appreciation for, and response to, MrX's comment. The article contains only two references: of these, only one is about the subject; the other is an article from an ad agency about an ad campaign commissioned by the subject (it only contains one quote from her). The promotional nature of the entry is further bolstered by the "External Links" section, which contains an oped written by the subject about the aforementioned ad campaign, a link to a TedX talk, and an interview from an alumni publication. Certainly, these sources point to a certain level of professional accomplishment, but as MrX notes, are they (or other sources readily available online) "notable enough"? Wikipedia provides guidelines to help guide us: its guidelines for people says that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The emphasis here should be on "significant" and "reliable." If we take significant to mean widespread, an internet search and a review of the above sources do not support a degree of notability warranting a Wikipedia entry. Most articles appear "reliable," in that they truthfully and accurately reflect facts, but run afoul of another, connected requirement of notability: the need for sufficient "reliable independent sources." Opeds written by the subject and articles from an ad agency commissioned by the subject would have a hard time convincing readers of independence. Many individuals achieve a level of achievement in their respective fields, but nonetheless fail to reach the notability requirements put in place to warrant an entry on Wikipedia; a review of the current entry and other sources suggest that this is the case here. (Raider1918 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]