Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahira Barry (2nd nomination)

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. The article has been significantly updated since the nomination. The nom stated that they had the intention of withdrawing their nomination but there was a Weak Delete !vote. The weak delete had concerns over passing WP:GNG but that seems to have been alleviated per the updates from I am One of Many which the !voter said wouldn't take much to push them over GNG. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahira Barry

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

This page's references are not sufficient, and this person does not meet the requirements of notability by WP:ENT. Also, while she has been featured with some other notable people, she still lacks notability independently. WP:INHERITORG Upjav (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment - The previous AFD for this was only closed THREE weeks earlier. I have looked on Highbeam and found 17 articles from January 2012 through to March 2014 (so ongoing coverage) specifically about her, albeit in papers like The Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The Daily Mail (although this does show she IS considered of ongoing interest to the lowest common denominator.) The articles are also spaced out every few months, rather than a single-event style flurry, which is evidence of ongoing coverage, and quite a few of the Mirror ones are in-depth, with over 700 words. I think she certainly passes general notability standards although the article needs fixing up, and bearing in mind the previous AFD was closed as keep, attempts should have been made to fix before renominating so quickly. Mabalu (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam doesn't include the Irish sources, of which I see another half dozen or so on a quick Google. She has certainly attracted attention as a victim of Internet bullying (I know how she feels - had the fake dating profile stunt done to me recently!) and although there is certainly a widespread school of thought that interviews are trivial and/or do not confer notability, I think the fact that such papers - with massive readership and circulation - are interviewing her (and not as part of bigger articles, but as the sole subject) is significant in itself. I had a look at WP:NMODEL and I imagine that the "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" is the criteria here that the previous arguments were referring to. She has certainly received ongoing coverage over a sufficient length of time to show GNG. You know, I can't actually see ANYTHING anywhere actually saying interviews do or don't count. Mabalu (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't look at the date of the AfD - that was a mistake. Upjav (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I will say, though, is that the previous AfD lacked participation and developed comments regarding rationale for the keep, which had a role in my renomination. As for Shahira Barry's sources, half are Blogspot/YouTube-esque sources, and the rest are borderline notable. Much of her argued notability comes from her affiliation with Playboy and that sort of quasi-inherited notability. Upjav (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It wouldn't take much for this person to meet WP:GNG. Most of the articles on her are from the Daily Mirror, and there are a couple others... but they're almost all interviews (not secondary or independent). It's almost all gossip-type journalism or Page 3 type stuff. What's more, the article as written is pretty severely promotional, and most of the footnotes fail verification. This is a problem article that needs a lot of work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a search on HighBeam and got 18 hits from three tabloids: The Mirror, Daily Mail, and Sunday Mercury. I agree with User:Mendaliv's analysis but I think these articles push her over the top with respect to WP:GNG. I'll try to add a few to the articles in the next few days. I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Boleyn, Davey2010, and Gene93k you all were involved in the last discussion of this article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as plenty of coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] - Passes NMODEL and GNG, Why on earth was this renominated THREE WEEKS later ? .... Also the nominator should read WP:BEFORE. (Thanks Mr. Guye for the heads up), –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, "oops". Upjav (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could have conceivably kept it as a speedy delete and retracted the nom because of the time in between nominations, but I'd rather not because of Mendaliv's weak delete vote. Upjav (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a number of sources, removed some unreliable sources, and fixed others. Nothing particularly impressive, but the sources are in-depth and span a couple of years, so she appears to me to be well within WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Also kudos to I am One of Many for substantial reference improvements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 19 September 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.