Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaire White

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 keep. Strong consensus that there is sufficient reliable sourcing (though specific sources may be so-so as regards reliability) and that the individual is notable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaire White[edit]

[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)

Not a lot of RS coverage of this person. I tried to look for some more RS coverage to beef up the article but the RS are scarce and the few RS that cover this person do so briefly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't in-depth? wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Thing is that I consider Newsweek a borderline RS, and if Newsweek is a RS (I do believe the RS noticeboard still considers it as a RS), it's still one of few to actually cover White at depth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely consider Newsweek and e.g. the New York Daily News reliable despite operating poorly in the recent times, simply because they de facto continue to accurately report the news. Reliability should be judged on the number of scandals, not on the number of fact-checkers they employ. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "few" in-depth reliable sources discussing the subject are enough to pass GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing sources are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I was honestly quite surprised to find this nominated for deletion. Subject is definitely notable. Absolutely passes GNG.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will make her pass the WP:GNG-guideline too. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. Coverage is enough to class as notable. TheMasterGuru (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me make this clear, I believe Blaire White only has significant coverage because she appeals to the lowest common denominator, so of course conservative and anti-alt-right sites jump to cover her. But, with that out of the way, I think there's definitely enough coverage to classify as notable. Ottoshade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 31 August 2018 (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.