Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michellee Fox

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. ✗plicit 00:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michellee Fox[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)

Chef who has a podcast. Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are pretty sketchy, and Google search brings up nothing. Perhaps this chef will become notable at some point, but for now I'm not seeing it. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it passes GNG. PS - If this article is deleted. I hope it won't be 're-created' & made into a 'redirect' like Carley Shimkus was. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hi - I'm the creator of this article and all of these sources were found on the public internet. Totally understand the comment about that 'chef who has a podcast' does not meet GNC. I agree, but believe this article goes beyond that. I would also note that it is often harder for women to get media attention from the largest outlests, but that does not necessarily mean the sources are not reputable or not significant. Thanks for considering. Niente21 (talk 03:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--there really is nothing there in terms of reliable secondary sources; the article has all the hallmarks of COI editing. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (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.