Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Adams

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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Adams[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable television personality. Quis separabit? 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG. 2008 profile and this one, along with the usual articles mentioning things related to her reporting, are sufficient for notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep 3 articles focused on her, plus "the usual articles mentioning things related to her reporting" to quote Wikimandis. It's enough to push her past GNG. (I do wonder whether developing standards for journalists might be useful) E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this "notable" is relying on publications. I wonder what happens if a television company owns a newspaper? I wonder what happens when a small-splash local show gets "fluff" pieces done on its presenters in all of its affiliated media? Does that person become "notable," simply because the employer is high capital? In other words, is notability entirely subservient to capitalist manipulation so that nations with low protections on cross-platform ownership will have all of their air personalities "notable" by definition? Look at what is being said about this person by these "independent" publications. This is not the place to vote to change the "it's published, and that's all we know" blindspot in notability, but this article offers nothing beyond a celebrity mash note (complete with switch to 2nd person narrative). Therefore, delete at present, simply because a closer look at the support makes one wonder. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, I don't believe Adams was an employee of a television network owned by the same owner as the newspaper giving her coverage, at the time. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2015 (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.