Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Allred


 * 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. As the predominant emotion prevalent in this Afd has been of Weak Keep, I'm closing this as a Keep, albeit a weak one. I would suggest at least six months (and evident discussions on the talk page of the article about the strength of sources) to give time for improving the article before a deletion renomination is attempted. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  08:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Alexandra Allred

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

clearly a promo puff piece, already deleted once for copyright violation and unambiguous advertising. I have trawled through the sources and they do not support notability. Sources 1: Blog 2: linkedin 3: blog 4: list of members 5: puff piece article that claims she was an olympian which is not true 6: goodreads 7: passing mention from 1994 8: book written by subject 9: article posted by the subject about herself 10: affiliated source 11: advocacy blog 12: does not mention the subject 13: blog from her group's web site 14: self published promo piece 15: ibid 11 16: doesn't mention the subject 17: amazon vendor page 18: amazon vendor page 19: goodreads Domdeparis (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything I wrote has been sourced from a reputable website that I researched.
 * Comment I know this topic was already deleted for being promotional before, I'm not sure how it was a copyright infringement. I never saw that page so I am not sure how it differs from this but I was asked to write this page without any foreknowledge of the subject for the express purpose that it wouldn't be promotional. With that being said I don't have a vested interest in this article I just want the facts to be available.


 * Most of the sources are primary to ensure accuracy. The descriptions you provided below are a little condensed, especially #7 the sports illustrated article, that's not a passing mention the whole second half of the article is on the 1994 national team and their respective experience and qualifying times. #5 is from Epoch Times, and the statement I cited is about her current occupational positions I specifically never say that she is an Olympian because she's not (from what I've gathered she was on the Olympic team but never competed but because of the lack of reputable sources on that I never mention it in that context, what I do know is in the sports illustrated article see above about #7). #10 is the Earth Justice website, I'm not sure how that makes it an affiliated source. #11 is a Huffington Post article not advocacy affiliated. #12 is the list of schools from the USA Today article to verify the claim. #13 is the group's website not a blog entry and is there to verify their existence as an organization. #14 is a link to the book that was referenced in the statement as it was posted on Earth Justice's website.


 * According to the guidelines for notability of creative professionals this subject meets the requirements there especially the third criteria, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The subject has authored many books and one had a film being discussed. She was the subject of a PBS documentary. She's been featured as an expert in countless articles and contributed to textbooks in addition to her own fiction novels.


 * As far as the list of policies goes that would warrant deletion, this article is not advertising in any way it was specifically written to be from a neutral point of view and all of the evidence provided is verifiable. Many things were not included for that reason alone.


 * I appreciate all the work you've put into editing this and looking at the citations and writing. I would be happy to change whatever will make it more credible but I think some of your comments are dismissive.
 * Please let me know how I can fix this to support notability. Thank you Lmgc1078 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)LMGC1078
 * I don't think any of my comments are dismissive but the sources do not support notability. You need to read WP:RS I think to undersatnd the difference between primary and other sources. If there are "countless" articles I would suggest that you add them as they are sorely missing from the article. When you say she has been featured as an expert in these articles I really don't know what you mean. If you are claiming notability as an author the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" have to be about her work. The books that she has published are self-published and could not be in all honesty described as "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". You really should read what constitutes, as per WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources meet this definition. #10 is clearly affiliated as she is named as an ambassador of the organisation. #11 is a blog on huff post written by Marcia G. Yerman and her profile  states "She writes for Moms Clean Air Force, bringing visibility to the issue of clean air and environmental concerns" and "Yerman was co-founder of cultureID, a platform dedicated to a nexus of culture and activism". The article is not overly promotional or I would have tagged it for speedy delete; the language has been toned down since the first article but taking into account the lack of reliable sources to prove notability the fact that your's is a WP:SPA that has been created to specifically write this article point inexorably to a promo piece for a non-notable person as per WP guidelines aimed at improving her visibility. If you were asked to write this piece you are clearly a WP:COI editor and or a WP:PAID editor, if this is the case you must WP:DISCLOSE the person who asked you to write the article.  Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes it did sound from my comment like I have a conflict of interest but I do not. The daughter mentioned on a forum that hers got deleted for being promotional so I went to write one without having any relationship with them so that it would be just facts that I could verify by more than one source.
 * Thank you for checking though.Lmgc1078 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)LMGC1078


 * I've added more sources to show notability including several national magazine articles and non fiction books in which she is featured as an expert as I previously mentioned. They are all articles about her works in fitness and writing.Lmgc1078 (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)LMGC1078


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Roseohioresident (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance of explaining why you are !voting keep? Domdeparis (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Based on sources here but that said, this article is bloated, with lots of boring pushing-it information, so it really needs to be trimmed down substantially -- get rid of the sources, stick with the references, write from them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent research by but clean up. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. If the subject is notable, the article stays, even if it's in terrible shape. That should be the only issue here.  Smartyllama (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I'm being uncharitable but all they did was type in her name into a search engine and post the results of the search that threw up exactly 6 individual results (not counting the translated articles into french) and has made no comments about what they found. As you have not specifically mentioned the results I'm not sure that you had the time to look at them but 1 is a mention of her name in a list of students. 1, the Epoch times, claims that she was an Olympian (false) that she was named USOC athlete of the year 1994 (false see so not sure this could be called a WP:RS. Another article by the same writer on the same site just cites her among a number of people quoted about drinking coffee. In the articles "is it ok to hit a woman" and "5 unique ways of using the treadmill" she was just 1 of a half dozen fitness instructors that were quoted. The healthline article is a quote from her and it repeats the misleading pr blurb from her website. So I am not sure this is "excellent research" to be honest. The article needs cleaning up but that is not my problem it is that the sources do not prove notability and the origanal article creator (the subject's daughter) has solicited on a forum help in creating the article about her mother. So a clear COI problem here. Domdeparis (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, kind of agree with your viewpoint, the whole thing is rather borderline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To address new developments.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: This is the weakest keep !vote I've ever said-- I feel that 's articles that he listed do not add to notability, to be honest, but that the NY Times mention and the HuffPo article (which may be a blog, so maybe not?) just tip the scales for me over. A thousand trivial mentions on different reliable sources have to eventually add up to something. The weakest possible endorsement to keep (but cleanup is definitely needed). Nomader (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2017 (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.