Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Weber

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

PR-based coverage, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Astrology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment She seems to be the go-to astrologer in Australia, [1], [2], [3] featured all over the place in TV and other media. Does being a subject matter expert with wide coverage meet GNG? Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, though more of a query, really. Is there a policy that being "PR-based" disqualifies a story which appears in an otherwise reliable publication? Meticulo (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Meticulo If you mean disqualifies the source from counting towards WP:GNG, then yes. Sources must be independent as well. If the bulk of the source relies on an interview, or quotes a press release, etc, it may not be independent. This then makes it harder to maintain NPOV (WP:5P2). The source may still be referenced for an article who's subject meets notability guidelines, with care to properly attribute statements, and to not give undue weight. —siroχo 08:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would normally wonder if this might be a borderline case (under either WP:GNG or WP:ENT), but the sheer volume of promotional content here makes it difficult to trust even the occasional seemingly organic mentions in media. (I didn't see any of those that would meet the GNG anyway, but at this point I'd be deeply skeptical of any that seem to.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2023 (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.