Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joelle Behlock

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedily deleted by Basalisk per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Behlock[edit]

Joelle Behlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject isn't generally notable. I asked the author prior to creation to create a user sandbox and develop a draft article but they refused. The prior article had already been PROD'd and deleted, which is why I'm taking this to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did the BEFORE search, as I've gotten burned before. I never make deletion noms lightly. That piece is an interview, so it's not independent of the subject. I don't see a lot of notability coming from todaysoutlook.com, either. There are a handful of pieces about the subject but I don't think the bar for GNG is that low. I remind you that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Let's wait 10 or 20 years for some real coverage before we make proclamations about notability. I've written 32 articles and (with one exception) none of them have ever been nom'd for deletion because I'm careful about staying within the notability guidelines, which I think the author of this piece, in their haste, failed to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do note that as per Wikipedia:Interviews the introductory section of an interview may be reliable and secondary, and so contribute to notability. Just dismissing a source because "its an interview" is not enough. However, that source alone is not sufficient to establish notability, even if accepted as independent and secondary. Thanks for doing a BEFORE search, too many AfD nominators skip it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris Troutman. - GretLomborg (talk)
  • Keep, normally I view beauty queen articles with suspicion, but here she has gone on to do a number of different things, and given the difficulty of finding third world sources that compare in quality to those in the first world, I think we DO have enough coverage to be adequate for GNG. Also, to say "That piece is an interview, so it's not independent of the subject" misreads the guidelines ... who is the interviewer, what media published the interview, etc... that's what matters. This is also an article tht needs a lot of work, but I think it passes muster. Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Montanabw's arguments above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You need to find the sources, not just hand wave that finding sources is difficult. We do not have enough sources to pass GNG, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:47, 28 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joelle_Behlock&oldid=1137952235"