Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Scott

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. Sandstein 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Scott[edit]

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:ENT Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I met Gemma the other weekend at the Classic Motorcycle Show where she was presenting their main stage, she has plans to present at Autosport International and Goodwood Festival of Speed. I disagree that she isn't notable and hope that as others provide their input and background this page will build up to quite an indepth profile of her —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianTurner99 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added career highlights to her page and will try and build up the background section as I get the time too - unless someone else can come along and add in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianTurner99 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look particularly notable - just someone doing their job. What she has plans for is of no relevance - see WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not saying she isn't good at what she does, but that she doesn't yet fit our standards for notability. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage found with Ghits or Gnews, and presenting a shopping channel and a late-night premium rate quiz line is a long way from significant roles in notable television shows required by WP:ENT. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points, but unsure of how this compares to someone like Diana Binks who has had much the same exposure. --JulianTurner99 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of one article doesn't mean another should. That's in a policy somewhere. (Someone'll tell us which...) I agree that she doesn't look in much better case - maybe she'll get tagged too. It happens like that sometimes. Chain reactions, even. Diana does have more references, though. That could be it. Personally, I've not heard of either of them before, but as I don't watch TV (and wouldn't be watching what they work in even if I did) that's not surprising. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dons nerd hat WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:55, 23 November 2010 (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.