Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Diamond

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. ✗plicit 12:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Diamond[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)

Fails WP:GNG without multiple, non-trivial independent sources covering the subject in detail. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Brunswick-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is semi-advertorialized, and not referenced to any significant reliable sourcing to establish notability. Two of the three footnotes here are very short blurbs about her in listicles, not substantive enough to count as WP:GNG-building coverage, and the third is just one of her books metaverifying its own existence in an online bookstore, which is not how you make writers notable either. Notability is not "she did stuff", it's "other people have written and published independent third party content analyzing the significance of the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While, as currently referenced, notability is week, a search of news sources does show significant coverage. That suggests that an interested editor could improve the article sufficiently to meet policy and guidelines. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—¿philoserf?, can you link to those significant coverage in this discussion?--User:Namiba 14:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person clearly exists and is doing a job that requires them to maintain a relatively high profile. However, I can't find references that look independent: there are blog entries and other online content, but nothing that seems substantive enough from independent sources. RomanSpa (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources mentioned are not reliable, fails notability.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2021 (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.