Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleina Kay

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleina Kay

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

Reason Celerians (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines on notable people.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (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/2017 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's an author and musician, published, and has had a fair amount of press coverage. Considering she has popped up in the news again recently for political activism I can't help but wonder if there is another motivation at play.95.144.85.201 (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can be an author and musician and not be notable enough for a wiki page. Can you show me where she meets the requirements for being an author WP:AUTHOR or a musician WP:BAND because the guidelines for both these areas clearly state that you require two works that have not been self-published? I voted to remain so please don't make bias accusations. Celerians (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's a nobody, one countless people who think they're more important than they are. She recorded two songs and listed them on iTunes, which doesn't make her a singer and printed two books, as can anyone who wants to spend their or in her case, crowd funders' money). This doesn't make her worthy of a wikipedia page, otherwise everyone who turns up to a protest will start wanting one! Once she's done something worthwhile she can have a page. I also voted remain, to avoid any accusation of bias. Cottrill93 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has managed to gain some press for protesting Brexit, but it's WP:SINGLEEVENT (even though it's multiple protest events, it's still basically just for one thing.) The coverages lacks scope and broadness to merit encyclopedic notability; they essentially focuses on the gimmick of a protester in a super girl costume. Also Fails notability standards for WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICIAN, as all coverage is run-of-the-mill and trivial in solid sources, and/or insignificant blogs, promotional, self-download, etc. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, pure self-promotion.

Delete It's a vanity page.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete egregiously self-promotional. No claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO or any SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-written publicity piece, padded with excitably stated non-notable facts, fails to meet any of the criteria (WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:NPOV, etc etc). Vilĉjo (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Clearly self-written, contains details only she or someone close to her would know (e.g D.O.B). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.40.122 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2017‎ (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.