Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Byfield

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. Daniel (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Byfield[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)

Poorly sourced biography of a journalist, with no particularly strong notability claim under our inclusion standards for journalists. The notability claim here is essentially that she and her work existed, but existence isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- to be notable for this, she would need to show some evidence of distinction, such as major awards or significant critical attention, to make her work significant. But two of the three sources here are just her own work metaverifying its own existence in online bookstores, which isn't how you make a writer notable -- and the only genuinely reliable source shown at all is a single obituary in a newspaper, which is obviously not nothing but isn't enough all by itself. Furthermore, this was created by a virtual SPA whose only other contributions to Wikipedia, in their entire edit history, have been to Ginger's husband and son, suggesting the distinct possibility of conflict of interest editing by a relative or family friend (especially since that edit history has included adding the names of all of Ted and Ginger's children, including the non-notable ones, to both of their articles without actually citing any sources for them, thus suggesting inside knowledge.) There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She just sounds like an average person, with no evidence of notability. Kittyclassified (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She founded an influential and notable right-wing Canadian magazine, so may well be notable. Please make sure to search for her legal name, Virginia Byfield, too. pburka (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not nearly what we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SPA is obvious in page creation and topics. As per nom, no particularly strong notability claim. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:46, 19 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.