Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Wall

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. ✗plicit 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Wall[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 journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. The notability claim here is that she and her work exist, with no indication of the sort of distinctions (notable journalism awards, etc.) that it takes to establish notability for a journalist, and the only referencing being offered is her staff profile on the self-published website of her own former employer. As always, this is not how you demonstrate the notability of a journalist -- the notability test is not passed just by using her own employers' staff directories to verify that she exists, it's passed by showing evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or independent coverage and analysis about her work. Bearcat (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but the page needs much better sourcing. There are some reasonably reliable sources talking about Wall see: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In no way the best sources. Open to being persuaded the other way. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be supported by blogs, Q&A interviews in which the subject is doing the speaking rather than being the subject that other people are speaking about, or short blurbs in community hyperlocals — so five of those six sources are doing absolutely nothing in terms of establishing notability, and the only one that is a genuine start (Vancouver Sun) isn't a clinching finish all by itself since even WP:GNG requires a lot more than just one decent source. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had originally PRODded this. I remain unable to find independent in depth coverage of her work as a journalist to meet WP:BIO. Vladimir.copic as you say, they're not the best sources. Interviews and profiles seem to just reinforce that yes she works as a journalist. Star Mississippi 14:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quickly looking at the sources on the page and in Google, it seems there is little to establish notability. Few existing sources where she was mentioned indicate she is hardly notable (see comment/reply by Bearcat above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show how they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:59, 25 July 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.