Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace[edit]

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

Article about reality star which fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. Seems to have no notability. Z list reality star, appearing as a guest star since she appeared on Big Brother. Only link to tenuous notability appears to be TV series, which was 3 episodes, and then cancelled. Also appears to be an actress (guest star or extra) on Serial Kaller, which fails WP:ENT. She is no more notable that the average film extra or tv guest star. scope_creep talk 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actress and television personality without significant coverage or achievements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the contrary, the article does cite significant coverage to get it past WP:BASIC. "Significant coverage" means that the topic is covered directly and in detail, not that the topic is significant.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me evidence. What significant coverage are you talking about? scope_creep talk 17:11 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It contains forty eight sources.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of sources does not donate notability. An examiniation of each of the source seem to show trivial claims of notability. scope_creep talk 20:10 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is what I exactly oppose to. Again, "non-trivial coverage" means that the coverage itself must be in-depth, not that the coverage shows the subject is important. Even if the coverage in any of these sources is not substantial, numerous sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The nominator's argument is not in line with WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, maybe WP:TRIVIAL, needless to say. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This woman has over 500 articles on her coming up in Highbeam - mainly in the lowest common denominator press, but ongoing coverage from 2006 through to 2013. Although there are clumps there, she does get a namecheck and/or quite a few words on her every few weeks. Some of it, from a quick search, is from inherited notability, such as being a friend of Amy Winehouse (around the time of AW's death). But she's appeared in at least three reality TV programmes as a contestant and is obviously someone who the LCD press think we should be interested in. I'll also note that she gets mentions in a number of books, including serious ones like Class and Contemporary British Culture. I'm not unsympathetic to the nominator, and yeah, it's depressing, but I think Aisleyne totally passes GNG with coverage over a eight year period (that is still ongoing). Mabalu (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as been in notable shows, Passes WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2014 (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.