Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Rockelle

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 13:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rockelle[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)

This article is about a non-notable "influencer" that was apparently accepted from AfC and then marked as reviewed at NPP, when it clearly was not in a state to be accepted, by NagalimNE. I tried searching for sources, as the ones in the article are merely trivial coverage, run-of-the-mill or otherwise entirely unreliable, and all that I could find was more run-of-the-mill coverage on minor incidents that do not establish notability per WP:BASIC. Also fails WP:ENT. Java Hurricane 07:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did a quick google news search where I saw a good number of reliable sources that's why I accepted it. NagalimNE (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are reliable sources or significant coverage; most are run-of-the-mill sources which do not qualify as significant coverage. Java Hurricane 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see many sources which are indepth and reliable like the Business Insider and La Vanguardia source. NagalimNE (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are precisely what I called as "run-of-the-mill" coverage. It does not impart notability. Java Hurricane 09:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NagalimNE: If this is the case, then you should've added those sources before you accepted the article. L33tm4n (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of churn in sources, but not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor WP:RS, not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:49, 30 September 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.