Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aileen Quinn (writer)

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 Earwig ^talk 02:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Quinn (writer)[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. While Quinn has an impressive social media following, it does not appear to have translated to significant coverage in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG by any means. Having a large following on social media doesn't make one notable. The only thing I see that is notable is having won a Round Table Commonwealth Award while at university, and that itself doesn't qualify one for a wiki article. Poor sourcing as well. ExRat (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. A social media following is some evidence of notability, but is hardly determinative, since it can be purchased or otherwise manipulated. I wish we would get away from all that nonsense, which tends to favor males, and stick to WP:GNG. In this case, she has garnered MSM attention, and that's sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see which coverage you're referring to as MSM attention, could you clarify that? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – any biography that brings up a subject's concrete Instagram handle in the first line will raise red flags, and I'd also like to note that I would be interested in being pointed to the significant coverage that has been mentioned above. I certainly hope the remark doesn't just refer to this brief review by The Independent, which is already included in the article. A quick Google News search for "aileen quinn tinder" comes up virtually empty, and while we (fortunately) have no set-in-stone minimum number of social media followers necessary to warrant inclusion just on their merit, I have a creeping suspicion that it wouldn't come out anywhere near around 40k. There's certainly plenty future potential for notability with this individual, but it's just not here yet. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further general views, and also to allow Bearian's bullet point to be discussed further if desired.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough coverage in reliable, independent sources. The Independent review qualifies as a passing mention. Ashley yoursmile! 06:52, 26 January 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.