Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Gutowski

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. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Gutowski[edit]

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

This subject is a part time actress, and has a youtube channel. She is not notable. Sources are mostly brief mentions. The article has a very promotional sound to it that could mean there is some COI afoot. Fails WP:GNG. Not much significant coverage. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to !vote just yet, but can you explain the basis for "Sources are mostly brief mentions"? The sources in the Washington Post, People magazine, Conde Naste Traveller, Variety, People magazine (again) and The Independent are entirely about her; and while they're not extremely long, they're not one-liners either. Each of them seems to be much more than a brief mention. TJRC (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources within the article are more than enough for qualifying on WP:ENTERTAINER, if not BASIC and GNG themselves. If I recall it right, all the sources within the article (or most) were added by me and the majority of the stubby article was written by me more than a year ago. So I don't believe there's any COI, except the normal drive-by fan/vandal edits that have been reverted as and when. Lourdes 14:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, no problem with the sources...-- Dane ^talk 06:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage shown in the article's references. gongshow talk 07:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the sources I identify in my comment above, which appear to be much more than brief mentions as characterized by nom. I'm additionally persuaded by having run across this book (ISBN 1501146661) in a Barnes & Noble over the weekend. TJRC (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (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.