Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Olivi

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Olivi[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under WP:GNG as it does not have any significant coverage in reliable sources only in unreliable WP:RSs (such as iMDb and social media sites). A WP:BEFORE search did not return any useful sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Fighters Only Magazine reported on her and her TV crew avoiding ejection from a Superbowl event, although that seems rather trivial. There's a brief profile from her days as a Padres reporter here. And her defence of UFC from Meryl Streep's infamous attack at the Golden Globes has got some coverage [1] [2]. That may be enough to drag her over the GNG borderline.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Changed to definite keep, see my second comment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Weak keep, same rationale as Pawnkingthree.RudyLucius (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage from her employers, Fox and the UFC, can hardly be considered independent. Her work promoting either/both of those also doesn't seem to qualify as significant independent coverage. I am not voting yet in order to see if those advocating for the article to be kept can come up with some truly significant independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I look at the article I see an IMDB bio posted by her agent, her own web site, a brief article about her husband with a passing mention of her, and a blog online interview. As for the articles mentioned in this discussion, she got mentioned in a list of people supporting a Dana White (her UFC boss) comment, a mention of a tweet she made on the same subject, a blog post about her being hired to be a Padres reporter for Fox, and an article about her pushing the UFC at a Superbowl event where Jay Glaser was able to keep her and her crew from being booted out. I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this in depth interview with The Province, a major Canadian newspaper. This is definitely "significant coverage" in a reliable independent source.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one good source and don't think WP:GNG is met. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Using google news on her name brings up heaps of trade articles but that combined with the in depth profile that Pawn found and being one of the hosts of a tv show would normally push her past WP:GNG. I would also support a redirect to her TV Show but deletion is not right as there are redirect targets available. GuzzyG (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2017 (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.