Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Borzillo

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Borzillo

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

Non-notable biography. Being a competent journalist who actually manages to get published doesn't make one notable. Nor does marrying a celebrity. GHits are mostly a) her own Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., pages; b) interviews in non-notable e-fanzines such as revver.com and popdose.com; c) passing mentions in connection with Chris Vrenna's divorce from her; and d) routine book reviews (which are about publications, not about her as a biographical subject). I don't see anything that suggests this person is notable enough for a bio article here. Furthermore, the "article" is just a somewhat wikified copy-paste of her résumé – it even had a résumé-style "references" list in it! (I.e., people to contact as character references, not references in the WP sense of cited sources.) As such, it is either a blatant copyright violation or an obvious conflict-of-interest piece created by the subject herself. Update: It's the latter, apparently. Either Borzillo[-Vrenna] or someone posing as her was a major, repeat contributor to the article, as CBV2007 (talk · contribs), possibly also the anon-IP creator of the article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Um, no it wasn't incomplete. This bot is certainly well-named. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. I grant that the bot's notice may be somehow misleading in implying that the nominator missed a step, but the point is that, at the time it run, some part of the nomination wasn't in place (in this case, undone). Tizio 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a third party error, then. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No notable sources found. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me. It seems a little strange that a person who was working on "cleaning up" and editing the article suddenly decides to nominate it for deletion... is that unusual or is it just me? Dogtownclown (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On what policy-related basis does the article "seem notable enough to [you]"? That's far too vague and subjective a comment to be useful at AfD. See also WP:AFD#Before nominating an article for deletion; improving and researching an article as best one can should be done prior to turning to AfD, which is a last resort. I don't understand how you are somehow confused about this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 08:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With proper sourcing of some key points this would be a keep, though. GregorB (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2010 (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.