Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Yarchun

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Yarchun[edit]

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

I can't find significant discussion of the individual in reliable sources. Google search results in mainly event notifications and passing mentions. Contested prod.... discospinster _talk 02:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Google search turned up slim pickings. Quis separabit? 03:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "contested prod" in discopsinster's comment mean? The subject is discussed in several major newspapers. 19:15, 29 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.227.17 (talk)

"Contested prod" means that a proposed deletion tag was put up, and then someone removed it. That means the next step would be to have a deletion discussion (i.e. what we are doing here). I see many sources where she is mentioned, but not many where she herself is the subject of the article in a major newspaper. ... discospinster _talk 20:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is the question about the references listed here or about what's out there on the Internet? If the latter I see reviews in the New York Times and Backstage.com, a feature in the Star Tribune (10th largest Sunday newspaper in the U.S.), plus lots of smaller stuff. Wikipedia entries on playwrights are hugely inconsistent on references - what is wanted to show "Relevance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.227.17 (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, the specific applicable guideline for notability would be WP:CREATIVE, but you are quite right about the inconsistencies in referencing. menaechmi (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim of notability is basicsally that she authored "the fastest-selling show in the 2017 Minnesota Fringe Festival". Agricola44 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the "fastest selling" production at a festival with "fringe" in its name is basically shouting louad and clear "this persons work is not notable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet the WP:GNG requirement.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 4 September 2017 (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.