Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Black

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, though Trackinfo is reminded to assume better faith in the future. –MuZemike 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Black[edit]

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

No claims in the article amount to WP:Notability, and I can't find sources that establish it. I can't even find evidence that her real name is Pettigrew, as claimed in the article. Unreferenced BLP. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So there are no sources, why bother looking for a source, lets just delete the article instead. Yes, that's sarcasm. I've added several sources to the article. She seems to be what the article says she is, which is usually the case of these "dangerous" unsourced BLPs.Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources added meet the requirements at WP:V#Sources, which is the only way to establish notability. Let me examine the 3 sources added:

sciencestage [1] - this appears to be a usergroup, and thus is not reliable.

Zurina Bryant photography [2] - Blogs are not reliable sources, and cannot establish notability.

Fashion Eccentric [3] - another blog.

I'm always happy to withdraw a nomination if I have missed reliable sources, or if sources are available offline which I don't have access to. The sources provided clearly don't meet WP:RS, though. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I added more. At some point these things need to end. Normally in journalism, two independent sources justify information. Here we are now up to 11 different sources listed on the article. You can discount one, or two, her Facebook is obviously self generated. But there are multiple modeling agencies marketing her pictures and services, charities she has worked with at public events and even if there are blog entries, from multiple directions they are essentially saying the same kind of things. Its a concept called corroboration. She's listed as a host of a regular series on HBO. That should make her notable.

I don't know this person from adam. I haven't been to Singapore in decades. Its more about the principle. That people will criticize an article, no, that they will readily delete an article because of what they don't know. But they won't lift a finger to try to find out. How did I come up with these extra sources? I'm using this super secret search method called google. You should try it some time. There are other things like it around. Deleting reasonable articles, deleting other people's work, is not an honorable pursuit.Trackinfo (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources added:

PlushAsia [4] - this is nothing more than a photo of her.
Give [5] - this is an advertisement for an event, so I can't see this as establishing notability. It's only a passing mention, so it fails to satisfy the WP:GNG requirements from that angle as well.
Pop Shuvit [6] - this is a blog, and a passing mention of her at that.
Phantom.com.sg [7] - This is her resume, that doesn't count as either a reliable source, or evidence of notability.
The Collective [8] - This is a talent agency that sells her talent, that is actually controlled by her.

As I mentioned before, I have done a search for reliable sources, and I would suggest that you read the policy and the guideline that explain what a reliable source is. None of the sources offered so far meet the requirements set forth in those places.

Also, please stop accusing me of violating WP:BEFORE. I have looked for sources, and could not find them. That's why I brought the article to AfD. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me connect the dots for you and other folks who like to delete articles. Cites from the article: #1 says "As the host of Friday Picturehouse on HBO Signature (StarHub Ch 66), Linda Black has a job most cinemaphiles would kill for - featuring new, exciting and edgy movies premiering on Asian television." and it ends with "Catch Linda Black on HBO Signature Friday Picturehouse every Friday at 10pm on StarHub Ch 66." Which pretty much identifies where she works. #2 reads "Linda Black (Pettigrew) is an American born, Singapore based television host who is best known for hosting HBO Signature's 'Friday Picture House' and Discovery Channel Asia's 'Cathay Pacific on the Move'." Different text, not duplicated but corroborates the same message and adds a second major network that she works for. #3 is promoting a charity event she is hosting "Linda Black, a professional model, emcee and HBO host." She is a significant enough of a celebrity to MC a fundraiser, and again it corroborates HBO. #4 is a different charity promoting a different event she is hosting. Again she is identified as "Linda Black of HBO" #5 is a blog item from her husband, who turns out to also be a celebrity and the previous host of the show passing the baton "My last few weeks on HBO Signature are coming to a close soon – I’m being replaced by the very talented Linda Black, as I move to a new show on CINEMAX." As for her real last name, this is already the second tie in to this guy. #6 is her resume hosted by a Singapore modeling agency. #7 is a photographer's blog, again mentioning husband and talks about her modeling career. Gee, another point in the article corroborated. #8 is her page on a second modeling agency site, called the Collective, which is run by the various models it is promoting including herself and her husband. #9 is a fashion blog talking about a fashion show which was attended by "local celebrities" "Linda Black and her husband Oli Pettigrew" Take any one or two sources, yes it might seem weak. But she's treated as a celebrity, and is referred to as having a notable job at two notable TV networks by all of these sources that are clearly different. And if she were deliberately self-promoting, (OK she obviously is on a couple of them, plus her facebook page) you'd certainly think she could come up with more and better mentions than this. As I said before, I have no interest in this individual--its just one I clicked on that said there are no sources. I found sources that back up what the article says. That should be sufficient. It apparently wasn't, so I found more. Its not a victory to successfully remove somebody else's work from Wikipedia. Its a tragedy that so many people on here find sport in trying to do that.Trackinfo (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (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.