Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Galvin

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. -- Scott (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Galvin[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)

Subject fails WP:NACTOR since she has not had significant roles in multiple productions. Subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR since her only published work was not widely discussed by independent, reliable sources. Subject fails WP:GNG because she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. This article attempts to establish notability through WP:REFBOMBING and reads like a CV. -- PS. I found another Rachel Galvin when performing WP:BEFORE, that other one is a poet. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now with the analysis of sources (only 56 of them)
- 1: subject not mentioned
- 2: press release, by the subject, of a non-notable musical
- 3: IMDb reference, showing that the subject was uncredited as a minor character in an episode of a TV series
- 4: subject's IMDb page (not a reliable source). Lots of uncredited parts, minor parts and shorts. No significant roles on sight.
- 5: Youtube. A 6-minute production, not independent
- 6: website by the subject, not independent coverage
- 7: Youtube, not independent
- 8: Kickstarter? Not RS
- 9: IMDb, again, not reliable
- 10: Talent management website, can't spot mention of subject anywhere
- 11: subject's personal blog
- 12: 404
- 13: the subject's magazine again, not independent coverage
- 14: apparently the subject is editor here, not independent
- 15: 404, award does not seem notable since I can't find much about it
- 16: leads to the front page of a local newspaper, subject not mentioned
- 17 to 42: works by the subject, not about the subject - yes, I checked them all
- 43: subject's magazine, not independent coverage
- 44: "photos courtesy of Rachel Galvin", not independent
- 45: 404
- 46: subject also works here apparently, so that's not independent
- 47: not independent
- 48: 404
- 49: This one is independent of the subject
- 50: interview, not independent of subject
- 51: 404
- 52: 404
- 53: subject not mentioned
- 54: subject not mentioned
- 55: 404
- 56: subject illustrated a book that is on Amazon.

My WP:BEFORE did not find anything beyond these links, so that's a WP:GNG failure. I could not find any reviews of her book "Basics of the Biz:: A Holistic Approach to becoming an Actor" so that's a WP:NAUTHOR failure. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: on a close inspection I agree with nom's assessment of the sources. Good example of WP:CITEKILL. SITH (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried to go through all the sources but so many are either missing from citation provide or self-sourced that I got exhausted. valereee (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2018 (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.