Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Zukerman

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 keep. Some good sources here ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Zukerman

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

She might be notable, but currently I do not see it from the article. Two of the references are interviews, none are in media I can recognize (well, I can recognize ELLE - which is a kind of tabloid publishing horoscopes, right?). From the article I do not see why she is notable either. Let us run it through AfD to see whether she is actually notable. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the precanned google search in the template shows definite sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. References do not have to be in the article to demonstrate notability, they just have to exist. I think there is sufficient IRS to also support more article content. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For BLP articles, references have to be in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment "notability not shown" is not a deletion rationale, rather use wp:Before. Marthadandridge (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement is incorrect, and, in particular, it is incorrect for BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wendy Zukerman is notable as you can see from a basic google search, but this article in its current state is an unremarkable stub that does not do her justice. This needs someone to actually write/edit the article esp. since it's a BPL. Jooojay (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use improvement, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, faulty deletion rationale. The nominator's claim that notability of BLPs has to be shown by sources that are actually in the article is not supported by WP:BLP (which merely says that all challengeable claims in an article must be sourced). And in any case the article has been significantly improved since nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish there was a Science Vs article that I could vote merge and redirect to, but there's limited coverage on her - almost everything I found is about the show - and so she fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:51, 20 April 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.