Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janine Machin

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Machin[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)

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page inadequate, but regionally well known. Some demand: average of 21 views a day over last 90 days.Bmcln1 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the while there are no reliable sources the page is likely to be deleted. A lot of presenters are known "regionally" but this doesn't mean they are automatically entitled to an article. This article currently fails WP:GNG but can meet the requirements if more RS can be found. The current sources aren't about the subject herself, just a passing comment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is built around reliable sources, not some general seense of regional knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator here (my searches bring up BBC website bits mostly with occasional mere mentions), all the sourcing here is purely in passing (#1 is a WP:PRIMARY interview of 20 short questions, #2 is a name drop: "Janine Machin welled up following the story of Jane Windle" and same for #3: "Janine Machin, pictured, will front the programme covering the west of the region"), and does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. The makes her fail WP:BIO, which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" It also has to be said that Bmcln1's pageviews argument does not stand per WP:POPULARPAGE and should be discounted ("just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope"). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as previously argued . I do not know why it was relisted--it seems clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 6 July 2019 (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.