Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Rodgers

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Rodgers[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)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have an article just because she exists -- the notability test hinges on some evidence of distinctions, such as noteworthy literary awards and/or enough media coverage about her work to get her over WP:GNG. But the only notability claim on offer here is that she and her work exist -- and the article is referenced to two primary sources, which are not support for notability at all, and two pieces of human interest coverage in her own local media in the context of seeking crowdfunding for a film that was apparently only just completed and has still not actually been released in theatres, which is not enough coverage to get her over GNG all by itself if you can't show any evidence of wider nationalizing attention. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger basis for notability and improved sources for it, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Ilanderz here. Forgive me, I'm just learning how to craft these sorts of articles, and I'm not at all sure about the proper protocol for how to participate in this sort of discussion. I will modify my participation as instructed and as I learn more. In the meantime, I hope and trust the informality in my response doesn't offend.

I don't object to the grounds for deletion. You folks no doubt know better than me and have a much broader perspective. Based on examination of similar wiki pages for people of equal or lesser renown, I had thought there was sufficient external press coverage to warrant such as article (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Summerside Journal-Pioneer, Charlottetown Guardian, Buzz PEI), but perhaps I am mistaken. I haven't included all the links yet because I haven't had time (learning how to create a wiki page itself has been a time consuming process!) I do believe my subject is of sufficient reknown in Prince Edward Island, but perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps that is not enough.

I have copied and pasted what I've done so far so that I can re-create it later should my subject come to warrant it.

Once you see my response, do what you need to do (and feel free to edit or delete all this, which I imagine is way too informal for this forum). Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanderz (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Welcome Ilanderz and thanks for your contribution! You can find the guidelines here for what makes a creative professional notable enough for a page. You are allowed to vote below to express your opinion using "delete" or "keep" in bold. Part of the deletion process will be to see if there are any sources that make this person notable, regardless of whether they are already in the article or not, so feel free to contribute on that here. Unfortunately the fact that there are other people equally or less famous on Wikipedia is not an argument as each page is considered against the criteria. It might just be that no editor has flagged these other less famous people but they might be flagged in the future as Wikipedia is only based on volunteers. Happy editing! Lainx (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to report local ad articles trying to increase crowdfunding, and it is not supposed to reflect original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you Lainx! Based on the guidelines you pointed out, I must concur that, strictly speaking, this article does not yet meet that criteria. However, I'm confident that my subject will eventually come to meet the criteria, so I have saved my work so far for future reference. Ilanderz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, I am glad to hear that and it is in no way a reflection on the person, who looks awesome! It is sometimes called WP:TOOSOON. I think this page will stay here for another few days until a clear consensus emerges and an administrator decides to delete or keep it depending on the consensus. Lainx (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and Lainx. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2020 (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.