Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misee Harris (2nd nomination)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misee Harris

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

WP:BLP1E. Non notable dentist who was involved in a minor news event when she resigned. Paid vanity page. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Need better sources to raise about vanity level, inappropriate for Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current refs: #1 an activist's blog article #2 is just a brief event summary and ends with "Go to her Facebook page to show your support." #3 and #4 are indiscriminate collections of Harris' quotes in "Local News" and the "Chicago Defender" #5 ends with "Congratulations to my dear friends, Chris and Misee!" and is a sponsored post #6 is SPS obviously. In short: the references suffer from the same weaknesses as previous refs in the last AfD: none of them is clearly reliable and independent and in-depth. They may raise some temporary publicity, but not any kind of lasting notability. The description of her non-notable acting and producing activities is also exaggerated and needlessly detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO clearly Not notable and clearly paid vanity page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original deletion was correct, and that the sources in the "new" version weren't substantially different than the ones in the deleted version. (Obviously, since I g4'd it.) The sourecs added and events since then haven't dissuaded me. It should additionally be deleted as a blatant and now-admitted violation of the Foundation's terms of use. —Cryptic 06:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God knows - I was convinced in the first AFD it should be deleted, I G4ed a particularly egregious PR-puff version of it in January, at DRV I was persuaded she might be more notable now in the aftermath of the Ferguson outrage...

I think the only thing I would suggest is if it is deleted, this redirect was a useful thing and should be restored. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another case of attention-seeking, and not attention-getting, fails WP:PROMO, her claim to fame seems to be "her protesting for the unfortunate, but unavoidable killing of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri" could some English teacher parse that for me? Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunate but unavoidable" is a drive-by by an IP with an axe to grind. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what means "to protest for"? And "the killing of the late X"? Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 25 August 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.