Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Nedrow

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. Sandstein 05:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Nedrow[edit]

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

No evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people). Coverage is limited to two brief, single-paragraph treatments in articles on broader subjects, which falls far below WP:GNG's standard of "significant coverage". Apparently no coverage at all outside the immediate locality. The article's tone is promotional, its objective appears to be self-promotion, and it contains generous doses of original research, problems usually dealt with through normal editing but which in this case are not remediable because of the paucity of reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This clearly falls below the threshold for notability. Maybe some day, but she doesn't pass today. No coverage in RS, only blogs, nary a single gnews entry even. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am debating the removal of this article. I loosely based my article on how Steven Purugganan's article was made. I am confused as to why he has mostly all references from YouTube yet his article has not been questioned. I see that Rrburke has said I lack reliable sources, but I am just confused as to why his article has not been questioned as his has less reliable sources for his information

Thank you,

Speedstackinggirl (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of other articles that also need to be up for deletion, perhaps including the one you mentioned. That isn't an argument to keep this one, however, it just shows how backlogged we are at deleting articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is lacking. Eeekster (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (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.