Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayana Mack


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ayana Mack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article began as a piece of blatant self-promotion (assumed, since the author has the same name as the subject}. It  was almost mimediately tagged for CSD A7, which the creator removed with impunity - it should have been speedily  deleted there and then. Over two years further on, no  attempts have been made to  provide references. Not all radio presenters are notable, and it appears that this one is not sufficiently notable for an article in the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it wasn't blatant self-promotion it was definitely blatant promotion. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with Kudpung. Since I can't find any reliable sources about this woman and nobody has been able to in the two years that this article has existed, I'm confident that this person isn't notable.-- Piast 93  16:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a common fallacy to assume that someone else has done the work of looking, so one doesn't have to. We have no evidence that anyone has looked for sources during those years.  Indeed, we have fairly good evidence from the edit history that (aside from the initial cleanup within a week of creation) only one person has given this article any attention at all during those years, despite tagging, and that is the very person who wrote the promotional blurb in the first place.  Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made a good point. Thanks for pointing that out. Despite my flawed rationale above, I still support deleting the article since I couldn't find any evidence of notability.-- Piast 93  20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2010 (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.