Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Cebula

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. Subject has been deemed sufficiently notable to pass our GNG requirements. Carrite is reminded an absence of sources continues to be a valid reason for the deletion of BLPs at AFD, regardless of creation date. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Cebula[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How was this article left unsourced for almost a decade? Good to put it up for AfD so at least it gets some attention; revamped, added references; removed unsourced material, added a category. In the media age, like it or not, TV personalities are notable, meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added get her past GNG. Two of the three are small, non-notable blogs that fail WP:USERG, and the third is a primary source video in which she's the interviewer, not the interviewee, in a segment on the program she works for. Thus, at least on the basis of those sources, she fails to be the subject of independent coverage in reliable sources. In reality, TV personalities frequently fall on the wrong side of the distinction between "I've heard of them" fame and properly sourceable notability, because there's quite frequently very little or nothing we can actually write about them without relying almost entirely on primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sourcing here gets her past WP:GNG, as outlined above. As always, I'm willing to revisit this if good sources about her can be added, but a living person is not entitled to keep an article that's entirely unsourced as this originally was, or one that relies on primary or unreliable blog sourcing as it does now. Delete unless real reliable sources start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight sources; tons more possible; she's a celeb; it's how the world is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first three sources you added still don't count for the reasons I outlined above. Of the five more you've added since: three are just photographs of her, one is a mere directory listing of a couple of television credits, and one is a steak recipe in which she's mentioned a single time as the person who e-mailed the food columnist to ask what she could do with kale. All of them, thus, fail to constitute substantive coverage of her. I'd suggest that you take some time to read WP:RS and learn what constitutes good sourcing, because the fact that you can find eight pages that happen to have her name in them does not mean that you have eight real sources for a Wikipedia article. We're looking for substantive coverage, not cursory text matches. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's agree to disagree. When BC Living magazine names Cebula as one of their 10 most beautiful people of British Columbia -- if that factlet does not float your boat, not sure if anything will.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Factlets", whether of the boat-floating variety or not, don't confer encyclopedic notability, sorry to say. Lots of people have been awarded non-notably local distinctions by non-notable local organizations (e.g. most beautiful person, Top 40 Under 40, Local Luminaries to Watch, etc.) without qualifying for Wikipedia articles on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Would this float your boat?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Not a notable publication that passes our reliable sourcing rules, so no. I said in my original comment that I was willing to reconsider this if good sources started showing up — but make no mistake, Rob's sources are the ones that might get me to change my mind, not yours. You really need to learn what constitutes a reliable source and what doesn't, because not all possible sources are equally valid ones. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG she has substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. We have multiple detailed interviews of her. We have repeated and ongoing coverage of her career over the years. I did a search with ProQuest for Canadian periodicals and newspapers, and found well over a hundred hits mentioning her. I simply haven't had time to add every detail available. I have removed the trivial mentions of her, so the better sources aren't lost in the mix. --Rob (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is reminded that AfD is not the Article Repair Workshop. Old unsourced BLPs were grandfathered when the new policy came about and was not a valid rationale for deletion of this article at the time of the nomination. The article is now sourced up in any event, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Old articles are "grandfathered" as far as {{Prod blp}} goes, which means AFD is the appropriate route. There was no claim of notability that's been generally accepted in the article. Local hosting, or being a national reporter, generally isn't, by itself, enough to keep an article. The only reason the article is being retained, is because it was shown to meet WP:GNG after sources were added. --Rob (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob is correct, old unreferenced BLPs are only "grandfathered" in the sense that they're ineligible for the BLP prod process in particular; they are not "grandfathered" in the sense of having any entitlement to stay around in a permanently unreferenced state, and are still fully eligible for deletion via the AFD process on any of the grounds by which we might consider any other article for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 17 June 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.