Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shazza McKenzie (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. The general consensus is that the sources are not suitable to show notability, and the delete arguments were insufficiently challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie[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)

Declined speedy under G4, requiring a second AfD nomination. Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is trivial and doesn't establish notability. A number of sources are results or reports only. More sources are needed and it appears they don't exist. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Deletion requested by IP purporting to be article subject: [1]. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local wrestler only with nothing truly notable on her CV. 150.101.89.115 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has competed all over the world won belts and been on WWE tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidzz (talk • contribs)

Note: This is the creator of the article. WP:PERX applies. Not seeking to invalidate the vote - just noting that it carries less weight 2001:8003:591D:2400:4029:4C6E:7721:3EAC (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article is fully entitled to !vote and has made an accurate statement - their !vote does not carry "less weight". WP:PERX does not apply at all - it specifically refers to a statement of support to a prior comment. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Claim made above has no reliable sourcing to prove it. Appearing on WWE TV does not confer notability. 2001:8003:591D:2400:4029:4C6E:7721:3EAC (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish delete I was about to pile on here, having had a quick look around and not finding anything to support GNG sufficiently well. Not sure why, but I had a second look and very quickly found this from 2016 and this from 2018. Both of these are outside wrestling and importantly the 2016 one from the SMH would be considered as about as best reliable secondary source as one can get. Not sure though that two such articles is sufficient WP:NEXIST though. Aoziwe (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unless I am missing something these two articles would seem to negate any concerns about the wiki article being public...? Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something. There was an incident that isn't recorded in reliable sourcing in June 2018 which attracted some nasty conduct towards her and it would seem has changed her view towards publicity. Understandable. Not that it's really relevant to notability but you made the comment and I'm just giving a possible explanation. 2001:8003:591D:2400:D82A:5984:4DF2:69D9 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Aoziwe (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the incident also including the lack of reliable sources, but for the reasons of the incident it is also possible that the IP puporting to be the subject could also have been an enemy of the subject trying to get this article deleted arbitrarily. (FWIW) Addicted4517 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very carefully AGF. I thought it best to simply leave it that. Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Aoziwe (above) discovering two mainstream media sources which deal with the subject in depth, the fact that the subject has performed successfully for several notable promotions. I also strongly dislike this attempt by someone purporting to be the subject to censor a Wikipedia article which contains nothing more controversial than a very brief career overview. Please note that Shazza McKenzie maintains a Twitter following of 19,800 people and an Instagram following of 16,300 people - hardly someone seeking to avoid publicity! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the three IPs which have commented on this AFD all have the same location and have made no edits outside this AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: I regret to inform you that both of those articles are promotional pieces and can not be used. As an aside, while the IP's haven't edited elsewhere (it's a good point that reduces their weight) they are Telstra IP's which give incorrect locations (FWIW). Addicted4517 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional in tone yes but by independent journalists for independent organisations. I am still on the delete side of the fence though - not enough NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, neither article comes close to being an advert and by no stretch of the imagination could WP:ADV be claimed to apply. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: On the contrary if you look at the conclusion of the Canberra article is advertises a show. The article was written to promote the wrestler and the show. That can't be anything else but promotional. The Sydney article comes from the Lifestyle Magazine part of the publisher, and that is a 100 percent promotional and opinion magazine. Aoziwe saw the promotional tone. Why don't you see it? Addicted4517 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper and magazine articles routinely mention the dates of upcoming live or broadcasted shows in articles on entertainers. If you cannot tell the difference between this and a paid advert then you need to be a lot more cautious in your editing. Additionally, the guideline that you linked to ([[:WP:ADV]) refers to external links designed to generate revenue based on internet traffic and bears no resemblance to the point you seem to be trying to make. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: I would appreciate it if you would not talk down to me. It's not very civil. Perhaps I did invoke WP:ADV when I shouldn't have, but treating it as a reason to question my editing was not a good way to reach a consensus. Either way, I don't know if you are aware but in Australia promotional news items are not the same as other countries as we have strict laws on advertising within articles. In other words, if a newspaper article advertises something without it being paid for the publisher could get into trouble. I'm just pointing this out. The thing about promotional articles such as these when it comes to professional wrestling is it's accuracy comes under scrutiny due to embellishment. So the articles can't be used certainly by themselves because the claims have to be verified further. I should have invoked the closest comparison - WP:SELFPUB. Now granted I'm not claiming the links were published by the subject of this article, but as they are promotional some form of the rule may well apply. Bottom line - the links don't prove notability which goes back to the reason for this AfD. I hope that makes the position clearer. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2018 (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.