Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Wallace


 * 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. No delete !voter was able to show how Sdkb's sources, all of which were in-depth coverage by reliable outlets, would nonetheless not be sufficient for WP:GNG to be met. Per WP:NEXIST, notability depends on available sources, not the current state of the article. The article, while not in a good state, is not so irredeemably promotional that deletion would be warranted in spite of the subject being notable. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Wallace

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable news producer. Unclear if her list of honors (for news broadcasting) confer notability or not. The only RS I could find about her was ; other sources seem to be WP:ROUTINE press releases. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets GNG. Sources:
 * &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the only source of those listed above that shows "significant coverage" about her is the first one (which I also found). The rest are WP:ROUTINE coverage about changes at NBC, and do not discuss her in depth. Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiring/departing articles can be routine, but I don't think that's the case here at all. They're not just short announcements that give a name from a press release; they're full bylined articles from media reporters like Brian Stelter that explore the context and impact of the moves. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the only source of those listed above that shows "significant coverage" about her is the first one (which I also found). The rest are WP:ROUTINE coverage about changes at NBC, and do not discuss her in depth. Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiring/departing articles can be routine, but I don't think that's the case here at all. They're not just short announcements that give a name from a press release; they're full bylined articles from media reporters like Brian Stelter that explore the context and impact of the moves. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiring/departing articles can be routine, but I don't think that's the case here at all. They're not just short announcements that give a name from a press release; they're full bylined articles from media reporters like Brian Stelter that explore the context and impact of the moves. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Anemic WP:PROMO piece. Wikipedia is not a resume or LinkedIn page. KidAd  •  SPEAK  04:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion is not cleanup. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While there is significant coverage out there, unfortunately the article reads like a puff piece that someone close to her probably wrote. Trillfendi (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Corporate executive, not notable. NBC is not a source, LinkedIn is not a source, those Emmys aren't sourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look above, you will see that the keep argument does not rely on NBC or on LinkedIn. The closer is not likely to give your !vote weight unless you at least attempt to refute the actual case being made for notability, not some imagined strawman. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sources aren't in the page. As it stands, it's a WP:GNG fail. Even with the sources, as noted above. the coverage is routine and not substantively about Wallace who I believe still fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of notability is incorrect. It is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article, so the fact that no one has added all the sources to the article yet is irrelevant. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all veering a tad close to personal. What the closer will or won't do is up to the closer. My understanding of GNG is just fine, thanks. The article as it stands doesn't meet GNG and neither does the subject. That's the point here, without getting pointy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:48, 30 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.