Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakura Saunders

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 no consensus. Sorry, do not see how this one can be closed differently.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Saunders

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

Seems to have limited to no notability. Most sources are from little known websites or blogs. Mike (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spent time searching and as nom said found unreliable/minor sources or trivial mentions. There are a lot of search results, so withholding vote to see what others might think or find. - GreenC 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was unimpressed with the references in the article as nominated. But I have since found, and added to the article, citations from multiple Reliable Sources including the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Portland Oregonian, and Yahoo! News. None of these provide extended in-depth coverage, but they are from major news outlets in two countries (Canadian references were already in the article) and IMO they show a high enough profile for her to be considered notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry being mentioned in an article does not make her the subject of it or imply notability. If my famous neighbours house burns down and I give a quote to a major news organization it does not make me notable. Mike (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bornderline notabilioty, and an absurdly overperson article. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete co-founder of a minor record label and board member for the Prometheus Radio Project is borderline, but the coverage is mostly incidental. --Bejnar (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the sources have improved since the initial nomination. People are citing the quality of the present article, but WP:Notability is not dependent on what sources are currently in the article or how it's currently written. A quick search leads to multiple sources that aren't represented, with headlined items in Hill Times, Now Toronto, beyond the Washington Post mentions. And a News search looks like she's been mentioned by every major Canadian news source National Post, CBC, Ottawa Citizen, etc. There must be some level of notability if she's being singled out as worthy of notice on multiple occasions across an international level of third-party media. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources; also per Elaqueate. -- GreenC 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at those "sources" they aren't articles about her, she is quoted in many of them but not the subject of the articles. This does not count as having coverage in a reliable source. Mike (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not at all convinced that those sources contain enough significant coverage to indicate the notability of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 11 January 2014 (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.