Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanelle McCleary

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 redirect to List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)#Chanelle. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chanelle McCleary

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

Notability, lack of. If this person is deemed notable ten Wikipedia' notability guidelines need serious attention. Looking at the article history it has been changed to a redirect to List of Big Brother 18 housemates (User:Boleyn) & Ex on the Beach (series 6)) (User:Lauren's World). I guess that the possibility of either being suitable will be the argument for notability, but thew truth about these TV programs is that appearance on then is actual proof of lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bang goes that argument for notabity, since both are redlinks.... I rest my case.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, the links above are wrong but the articles are there: List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)#Chanelle and Ex on the Beach (series 6). Both redirects are a clear WP:ATD. She would also potentially meet WP:ENT #1 (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.) She has been a significant part of 2 different notable TV shows ('Big Brother' and 'Ex on the Beach'), and also appeared on 3 other notable shows ('Take Me Out', 'Dating in the Dark' and 'Dinner Date'. It's hard to judge what would count as 'significant' though. Many Ex on the Beach participants (Jemma Lucy, Stephen Bear etc.) meet WP:NOTABILITY, as do dozens of Big Brother participants. Also lots of them don't and are good redirects. I'm not sure there's the coverage we need for a standalone article. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]

Keep? - I mean, there's sources for days ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) I... might personally think that reality TV is a cancer on society that should be cut out and cauterized. I... might not personally understand why anyone would subject themselves to reading these sources for fun... But there's reams of the stuff. GMG ^talk 16:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. One or two of the sources (eg. the Express) I wouldn't use, but there is sufficient coverage for WP:BASIC and a good argument for WP:ENT #1. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could clarify that I'm not saying these are the best sources as I thoroughly vetted all the ones available, because I didn't. I kindof of just started copy/pasting as an example because there's just that many of them. GMG ^talk 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the media world there are hundreds of thousands of people who have their 15 minutes of fame. The ref's are no more than advertorial's to promote the Big Brother house TV programs etc. There is no WP notability here. Aspro (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a common-or-garden Who?—someone who's a bit famous in a kind of self-perpetuating way but a bit famous nonetheless. Accordingly there's coverage out there, mostly tabloid but verifying at least her appearances and the fact that there's interest in her. People will ask us "who is she?" and we might as well have a straight forward answer, as we do. On the other hand, there is a kind of perpetual WP:SPIP machine at work between certain kinds of celebrity, magazines, advertisers and readers, but at a certain point it becomes self-sustaining and the way our article is written I don't see it as fueling the engine either way. Since she's known for appearances on more than one of these shows, redirecting to a section on one of them in particular wouldn't be right structurally. Mortee (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- accomplishments such as "In 2018, she starred in an episode of the Channel 5 reality show, Celebrity 100% Hotter, alongside Honey G" do not help to meet WP:ENT, and there's nothing better. The coverage is tabloid and / or routine for these types of shows. No evidence of cult following either. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In ictu oculi, what are your reasons for voting delete? Boleyn (talk)

Comment With two clear WP:ATDs, I can't see any reason for someone voting delete rather than redirect. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Myopathy GMG ^talk 07:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Big Brother 18 housemates (UK)#Chanelle. This seems to be primarily what she's known for. If she maintains notability for anything else, we can always restore what's in the history. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Insufficient notability for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 10 February 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.