Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Mackey

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. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Mackey[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and. and WP:BIO. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the Canadian delsort page. The nominator had added to it to the U.S. project, apparently by mistake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is based almost entirely on primary sources — her own website, her staff profile on the website of the channel she works for — which cannot carry notability. The only piece of reliable source coverage here is an article about a purely local charity fundraiser in her own hometown, but that's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG if it's the only valid source you've got. The role is enough to make her notable in principle — but the level of sourcing necessary to make her includable in fact is lacking. So, yeah, WP:TOOSOON it is. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2015 (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.