Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubyyy Jones

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubyyy Jones[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)

Non-notable performer. WP:BEFORE does not produce any reliable sources that have written about this performer beyond a passing mention in cast lists etc. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom Had a look into the article creator and it appears the account has only been used to promote this performer and their works. From a quick Google, it is very likely this account is run by Rubyyy themselves. When this article was previously PRODed, they removed the PROD followed by little improvement to the article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article doesn't show them, but a search brings up an interview in the Daily Mail and Cosmopolitan. Might just pass the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This person is a working performer, but not a notable person. None of their work is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sun Creator^(talk) 19:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and the presence of one promotional Q&A interview on the organizational blog of an organization she's directly affiliated with is not notability-making reliable source coverage that would get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to actually have a notability claim. Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn — we're an encyclopedia, and the bar to getting an article on here is considerably higher than just being able to verify that you exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (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.