Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gizelle Bryant

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. While there has been some coverage of Bryant there consensus among participating editors is that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gizelle Bryant[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)

Non-notable television personality and possible COI. None of the sources cited satisfy WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. Bosecovey (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over at Talk:Gizelle Bryant, prolific sockpuppeteer Davinia Priscilla says, "I paid for a page to be created" (implicitly, this article). --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources within article do not substantiate any claim to notability MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep - a quick name search returns alot of credible sources and coverage. I think she passes the notability but the claim on talk page of a possible COI is of concern. I read that she was scammed. MaxxyOswald (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC) — MaxxyOswald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you please list these credible sources and associated coverage? Also, COI is not on its face a ground for deletion. Notability is key because that is the one thing that no amount of editing can overcome. I do not see how notability is established at all and I'd like to see what significant coverage you found of the subject in reliable sources? Best coverage I can find is from the Daily Mail and per WP:RSPUSE: the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A leading character on a widely-watched television show. Ongoing subject of news coverage from the entertainment sector. Sued by Eminem 1, discussion of the show in The Washington Post 2, 3, 4, about her divorce and dating life on ET 5, about her "award-winning novel" 6 -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This 'character' is a real person; let's not perjure anyone like this. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. True. People sometimes have roles where they play a character of the same name and (mostly?) persona, like The Colbert Report. But yes, Gizelle is a real person and I do not mean to minimize that. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per suggestions made by Jaireeodell and additional sources I found through a simple Google search. Carbrera (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find are the typical celebrity fluff articles in People and those types of magazines. She's gotten some coverage for some controversial comments, nothing we can use to build an article.

Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Jaireeodell. ZuluKingJoshua (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The coverage is totally routine in nature. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Most coverage only deals with her in relation to the show she appears on. What is relevant can be used in The Real Housewives of Potomac. I found no indication that the book award she won has any kind of importance and the only book "review" I found just makes fun of her book. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 5 May 2023 (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.