Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Sheffield (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 keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Sheffield[edit]

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

Again, this is questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and there's simply no signs of obvious improvement. It's also worth noting two accounts with "SimoneSheffield222" and "SimoneSheffield2222" have considerably interacted with this article. Pinging MichaelQSchmidt, Eusebeus, Crowsnest, Krano, S Marshall, Dan Murphy and Louisprandtl. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not find much background information about this person, but there are a few India-based sources that mention her: The Times of India 1, The Times of India 2, Hindustan Times, Zee News. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Yash!, Human3015, MichaelQSchmidt, Human3015 and AKS.9955. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INDAFD: "Simone Sheffield"

Keep... again. Just as I did in 2009, I took what was nominated and gave it some regular editing attention. The COI contributor has been notified of our concerns and has not touched the article for over two years. An while Erik's concern about limited background info is a concern, background is not always notability and for non-contentious non-notability information we can use what Sheffield says about herself. As was spoken of in 2009, a quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources for verifibility of assertions, including the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. More, according to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", and in understanding that the wished-for WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline, we do have many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements in a more-than-trivial fashion. And, as reflected in the article new bluelinks, she has (co)produced several notable film projects, satisfying WP:CREATIVE even in the lack of the wished for WP:SIGCOV. She does meet WP:BASIC and that kind of sits above the other SNGs in the notability pecking order I should think, specially as one does not over-rule or supplant the other... they work together, not separately. Perhaps Crowsnest might use some of these to assist in further article improvements? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of references and sources46.208.73.116 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale. clpo13_(talk) 00:00, 30 November 2015 (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.