Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katja Glieson

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Glieson[edit]

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

Does not meet Basic criteria of notability for Biographical articles. Does not meet additional notability criteria for Entertainers. This article is also maintained solely by Ben Jackson, who is closely related either romantically or professionally to Katja Glieson. As a result this article exist as self promotion and therefore should be removed. StePAhi (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have a strong feeling this is a bad faith nomination based on the nominator's behavior (repeatedly restoring a PROD tag after being told multiple times that isn't how it works), possibly due to frustration "their article" was deleted. Regardless, Glieson is quite clear notable based on the numerous RS in the article and those found by a quick search. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:BADFAITHONOM. User's article was AfD'ed and has no editing history. It seems like this article was picked out of WP:SPITE in order to justify deletion of other article. As for this AfD: weak article but notability is met and WP:RS's are adequate. Article can be improved and WP:COI can be resolved.-☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bad faith nom or not, the bulk of the sources in the article are junk, and those that are reliable only briefly discuss a video that the subject was in. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources from a web search. If I'm missing something please point out such coverage. --Michig (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is there, Just needs a lot of tidying and needs alot of the promo crap removed - As an aside - I would fix the cite titles but I sure as shit aint fixing 35 cites manually only for it to be deleted..... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:59, 27 December 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.