Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Vigeland (3rd nomination)
In the article presented below, the topic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Vigeland (3rd nomination) will be addressed from different perspectives and approaches. Its origins, its evolution over time and its importance today will be analyzed. In addition, its implications in various areas will be delved into, from the social to the scientific, including the cultural and economic aspects. We will seek to offer a comprehensive and global vision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Vigeland (3rd nomination), so that the reader can understand its relevance and influence in today's world. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we aim to delve into the different aspects that define Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Vigeland (3rd nomination), providing detailed and updated information on this broad and diverse topic.
- 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 13:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Emma Vigeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted page still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST Sources include YouTube videos, a tweet, and a high school graduation announcement. I also suggest a WP:SALT to prevent persistent page recreation. KidAd • SPEAK 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not much by way of notable citations, she basically does her job. Likely still too soon for being at the "Majority Report" site, perhaps notable in a few years. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I would agree that she fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. T.B.A. (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This isn’t a notable person, and this article basically tells of an ordinary reporter. This article also barely came out of being a stub. User:Burgundian Feudalism
- Delete not every person who writes/speak political commentary is notable. This is some atrociously poor sourcing and scapping the bottom of the barrel when you dig up a high school graduation announcement to bad out the article. It reminds me of when I was going through and reviewing lots of articles on Miss x state winners (Miss Nebraska, Miss Kansas, Miss Kentucky, etc.). Over and over again about the only thing I could find on the woman since she held the title was a local announcement of her marriage in a local newspapers paid marriage annoucement section, as well as various sourcing on Linkedin. Although this is not as bad as the articles we have that directly source information to the census. I always want to know how people are that sure that David Mackenzie at such an such a location in the 1930 or 1940 census is the same David Mackenzie that would later be notable. Do not get me started on the 1920 census botching the names of both my grandmother's biological father and her step father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.