Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Quinnell

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 15:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Quinnell

[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)

A BLP violation and (presumed) autobiography, that has only survived because the original BLP PROD was declined for having one reference, and skirts the edges of speedy because of a small amount of sourcing like this. However, that's just not enough for a BLP. The creator / subject has been tinkering with it for the last five years, presumably completely unaware that this is a completely inappropriate subject for a general purpose encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTRESUME. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest this is a notable person. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and BIO.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't believe that this autobiography has lasted for five years! Wow. Not even an assertion of notability let alone evidence. Zero decent references found. Clear violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone, It lasted because of a mis-timing of events. The article was tagged for BLP PROD, then marked as reviewed when the article still had the tag on it. Then the BLP PROD was declined ([1]) as against policy, with the suggestion to use another deletion venue; however the original tagger didn't follow it up (because they weren't notified) and nobody else followed it up (because the article was tagged as reviewed, falling off the NPP queue). The lesson here is - don't tag an article as reviewed at NPP while there are deletion tags on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real series of unfortunate events. At least it's being picked up now, better late than never as they say. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Pretty surprised to see an autobiography last so long here. Java Hurricane 12:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: attending the same school as a notable person does not confer notability on the subject. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:59, 22 February 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.