Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle David

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle David[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced. The only reference does not appear to refer to her in any detail. If additional sources can be found within seven days, this article can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOM. Article is part of a move to advertise 2Leaf Press and associated individuals by editor Rubyperl. reddogsix (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article and 2Leaf Press and related articles appear to be a walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no actual museum collections an an artist, there's essentially nothing else close to that which suggests both substance and independent notability; examining the apparent sources finds nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by User:Rubyperl, moved from talk page - Gabrielle David is notable as the only African American women publisher in the U.S.A. She is recognized and known in the literary world for publishing renowned poets and scholars through 2Leaf Press and phati’tude Literary Magazine. I have corrected the references and external links, and have added citations as per your request. I look forward to the publication of this entry.
Comment Provide reliable sources in the article for the notability claims. Also, please discuss notability issues here rather than on deletion talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some things here and there like this that shows that she might be notable, but if there is enough out there I'd suggest that this get WP:TNT-d and started afresh by a non-COI editor. There's so much puffery and promotion in the article, along with unsourced claims, that this would pretty much need to be re-written from scratch. What makes the unsourced claims problematic is that other than it posing a BLP issue, I'm concerned about some of the vague claims in other articles, like the claims of the Phatitude magazine winning an award. Neither the magazine article or website specify what this award actually is, which means that it could be anything from something that could give notability to an award given out by a non-notable self-published blog or a vanity award. In other words, in an attempt to promote all things IAAS, the editors have actually done more harm than good because they've just ended up casting far more doubt on the veracity of the claims. I don't doubt that this might have happened in some form or fashion, but now we have to question whether or not any of the claims are getting puffed up beyond what they actually are. This is why COI editing - specifically article creation and the addition of major chunks of text - needs to be done very, very carefully. From a personal standpoint this is why I've refused some requests from people or organizations I'm familiar with, where the COI and issues (tone, COI) pose too much of a problem.

I'll see what I can find, but offhand if I find enough to suggest notability then I'll draft a copy on my own and endorse a deletion of this content, followed by the move of my draft - but that's only if I can find enough coverage. So far the related articles for the magazine and organization do not have any in-depth coverage that would establish notability for them, not even partially, so notability for Davis will likely rely on coverage for her specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, but couldn't find anything else out there, and I used my college's database along with the other usual search options (Google, literary websites, etc). It looks like the Boston Globe was the only place that really covered anything that David was involved with. I have a strong suspicion that she'll be reading this, so my advice to her is to please not take this personally. It takes a lot and I mean a lot to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. It's harder for small authors, publishers, and organizations to pass GNG, but meeting that guideline is still a requirement and while it'd be nice if guidelines were looser, they're very unlikely to ever become as such. My recommendation is that you solicit coverage from newspapers and submit your work to various journals and websites that do reviews - academic sources are the best ones to seek out. If the publication uses a DOI and/or is a known academic publisher, that is typically the best ones to seek out because they're almost always usable to establish notability. Press releases do not give notability on here, so be careful about just putting out PR. I know that it's not as easy as calling up the New York Times and asking for coverage, but establishing notability isn't an easy task in general and in many cases getting coverage is just as much a case of luck as it is hard work or merit. I would also recommend strongly that you not make COI edits to Wikipedia because at some point repeatedly trying to add things or making things seem more impressive will backfire and backfire badly, as it can make it twice as difficult to establish notability in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much text! So reference! Wow! And yet nothing of substance. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:CSD G12 plain and simple. Also, per nomination . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC) (Copy violation was removed) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could probably be snow closed, which I'd prefer to a speedy deletion - closing this AfD would help prevent it from being recreated in the future before it solves the issues posed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 20 September 2016 (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.