Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianna Wiest

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. ✗plicit 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wiest

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article currently has one reference. I cannot find anything to add - this writer appears to have been very little covered in reliable sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON? Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that article has been tagged for notability since March 2021. Tacyarg (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one local news source is not enough to show that a person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she appears to be a writer for Forbes, but there are several hits using her name in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, are those hits about her, or things that she's written? Only the first can be used to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've had this on my watchlist as "to-delete" for awhile but haven't gotten around to it. I don't think it's TOOSOON - the article has existed since 2017 and presumably she's been writing before that. I didn't find anything substantial when I searched, aside from the one local source already cited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that have been added to the article just now don't push past GNG IMO. The Etownian isn't independent as she was its editor-in-chief, and the second LNP Always Lancaster is by the same author as the first (per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability") and is still local. The NBC source is...basically instructional filler-esque content that's not so much about her as it is from her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the sentiments above. Additionally, Wiest appears to be a part of the Contributor program at Forbes (albeit a "senior contibutor") and not part of their writing staff. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the person is Questionable as the sources given are not enough. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2022 (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.