Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Wilding (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 delete. ✗ plicit  23:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna Wilding
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am aware this has gone through two previous discussions, but believe this requires another one. Since the last discussion, you can see from the talk page that the page has gone through a major change, as more and more of it was found either to be unsourced or embellished. She wasn't the White house photographer, she was part of the photographers pool, She wasn't a White House correspondent, her movie isn't notable and hasn't won any major awards. You then have the issue of her, and assumed to be her husband, editing the page and getting into wars about it. I believe this article written by David Farrier sums up the issues with this article best. I feel she fails WP:FILMBIO and WP:GNG and the last vote is invalidated due to incorrect information being taken into account. I ask that you look carefully at everything before you vote. — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As much as I hate people who game the system, she has done an exceptionally good job at it. The sourcing currently included in the article seems to pass all the requirements. If someone can make a persuasive argument for deletion, I'd be more than happy to change my !vote. Mlb96 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep My understanding is we let secondary sources decide notability and she would not be the first person to be notable for being notable (WP:BIO pass). If anyone should think that a Wikipedia page is a badge of honour then reading this one will dissuade them. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current version of the page is neutral and relatively well referenced. pburka (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. It'd be helpful if those voting Keep said which role Wilding had reached the standard of notability for. As a film-maker? As a photographer? As someone who sends out a large number of press releases? --  haminoon  ( talk ) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No particular achievements or great deeds are required for an individual to be notable. All that's required is significant coverage in independent sources. pburka (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On a similar note if I might read between the lines, Jessica Hammond is heading towards deletion right now and this page is heading towards keep. This feels wrong, but I can not articulate why using Wikipedia's notability rules. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. All the fluff and drama aside, it's clear to me that she's not a notable person.-KH-1 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, therefore not notable at this stage NealeFamily (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete She's good at self-promotion and even senior journalists fall for it. But when you take the stuff away that she's made up (i.e. the reason that journos talk to her), there's nothing left that establishes notability. Needs salting as otherwise, it'll be back.  Schwede 66  10:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete My view is similar to what Schwede66 said. I would argue her self promotion is a type of gaming of the system. This never would’ve been accepted at AFC and is well below our standards. I also agree that this should be salted. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite claims made in earlier versions of the article, no actual evidence of notability. Agree with salting the article.- gadfium 19:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There are nine articles in independent reliable sources about Wilding or her work. As they are mostly very short and not in national publications, then they just fall short of being "significant coverage". Please note that the article has been salted before. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Yes if this does get deleted and salted. It was salted previously under her name but someone rewrote the page under Anna Wilding (director) instead to get around it and it was kept (I believe incorrectly due to fluff), then moved to current name.— NZFC  (talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)
 * Delete as per others Nexus000 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.