Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Jay

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. A Traintalk 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Jay

Lily Jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

most of the claimed notability is not in my field, but I don';t see how any of it meets my standard. The Huffington Post does not have sufficient editorial control for a BLP, and the Inc item is a Inc Profile , which any privately owned business with an English language website can get for $30 a year.[1] . (I suspect we may have to check every article on a business using an Inc reference to remove the ones that are Inc Profiles.-- I did not realize how useless they wee until I read all the details on the linked page--by expanding the faqs at the bottom) DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of the subject. From a Factiva search, the only independent source mentioning her appears to be a Gold Coast Bulletin article (also published in Cairns Post) about a song written about her by a former X-Factor contestant. All other mentions on Google appear to be either trivial or non-reliable, or are self-published/republished press releases (see WP:BASIC). Only thing weighing in favour of keep is that she has a large fan base per WP:NMODEL but this is not a conclusive factor. Kb.au (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG . There is significant coverage of her modeling career, and her role in So You Think You Can Dance was documented in her IMBd page. Cannady212 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As John Pack Lambert pointed out, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDBREF), and a list of television appearances does not show notability regardless. Unsure what the significant coverage of her modelling career you're referring to is. Only independent source (that is, not self published or based on a press release) is an interview with her on blogging platform Medium. Kb.au (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The WP:GNG is met. Significant coverage does not imply a significant number of sources, but whether a topic is addressed directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this case, there is significant coverage of the model on several media outlets. Plus she has a large fanbase per WP:NMODEL.  ⚜ LithOldor ⚜  (T) 13:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the keep votes show a total lack of understanding what is and what is not a reliable source. IMDb is absolutely not at all a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After ignoring social media, self publishing sites, promos, and primary, there is essentially nothing left of any significance that I can readily find. Fails WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(correction The Inc articles was not a link profile, as Litholdor pointed out to me on my talk p. I'd say it would be more accurately classed as a press release, or at best an advertorial. The give-away was the author, "By Wanda Thibodeaux, Copywriter, TakingDictation.com", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com." DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an advertorial on a nn individual, built on WP:SPIP sourcing. Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weighing in with the re-listing. This subjects only claim to notability is a social media following, which doesn’t count. Also feeble is the recognition she may have received by an appearance on a tv show competition. Re: the keep votes, I wonder to what the degree the editors critically looked at the content of the sources/google hits? They all are derived from the subject's own press release/promo/advertorial origin. Yes, sources such as Inc. Magazine and The Gold Coast Bulletin can contain reliable coverage independent of the subject, but not every bit of content therein meets that criteria. Non-paid repurposing of promotional material can (and in this case is) passed off as "real" coverage merely to serve as content to fill out a publication/website. In this regard, the argument of meeting GNG by “…significant coverage…on several media outlets…” misses the mark. In fact, I can't find any significant coverage on this subject at all. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Social-media C-lister of insufficent additional notability. SunChaser (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lily_Jay&oldid=1145673179"