Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Aldridge (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Aldridge[edit]

Since article was created presumably by the subject (Celebjournalist), article has lacked any reliable third party sourcing that would reasonably expound on subject's career and notability achieved in her field. Since first afd nomination, article has undergone a series of edits by multiple parties to improve sourcing and conform to BLP standards. Since that time the two sources that remain outside of self-published are a Minnesota Monthly link that leads to a questionnaire absent of a reporter and reads entirely in the first person, and a New York times link which apparently leads to a filmography aggregator listing one credit. Subject recently added having won a Regional Emmy which is somewhat true but in so far as it was awarded to an organization of which she was part of a larger team. In my own experience with local television and related Wikipedia articles, even those awards given for individual achievement are generally not considered encyclopedic unless the subject has amassed a number over their career, or received something akin to a lifetime achievement award such as a Silver or Gold Circle designation from NATAS. Tmore3 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO sets the notability threshold at having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This broad statement is then qualified; simply being mentioned in such a source doesn't suffice: if "the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Aldridge is certainly the subject of this MM Q&A, and I assume arguendo that MM meets the standard of being reliable, etc. Nevertheless, the nomination seems to stand or fall on whether this lone Q&A is of "substantial" depth; if it is not, the other materials cited in the article don't make up the deficit. The NYT link doesn't even rise to the level of trivial (pro forma, if anything), and the other two references fail the independence prong (one is a story by her employer; the other is by her company). I'm undecided at this point, but wanted to put my thought process out there in case it helps other editors.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bit-part player, no non-trivial reliable independent sources offered. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability by association is not notability, at least not here. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am willing to accept the regional emmy as notable for her region, and not refuse it simply because no one in London or Paris might care. Notable is notable and it should be considered under WP:CSB. Further, I am willing to accept the less-than-trivial article in Minnesota Monthly and the in-depth Busted Coverage interview as tweaking the GNG. She need not be a correspondent in New York or Los Angeles to be notable. I suggest the stub article be tagged for expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply http://www.bustedcoverage.com/ is not a reliable source, per WP:BLP Reliable Sources. The ESPN link is an employer link, and the Minnesota Monthly link is neither an independent article or review. This publication incidentally has featured many in-depth balanced profiles of notable Minnesotans. To see an example, go to the search on the top of that MM page and type "Lori Swanson", the first result is noted as an 'Article' and going to it reveals a reporter and publication date of when it was featured. Similarly, type in "Kristen Aldridge" and note it is listed as a 'Page' with no reporter or publication date listed. In also reviewing WP:CREATIVE subject seemed to fail virtually every criteria and has been given more than enough time to find a few independent reliable sources. Tmore3 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (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.