Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brennah Black


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Brennah Black

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENT, and WP:NACTOR. There is lots of coverage in Inquisitr, and virtually nowhere else, which leads me to believe that Inquisitr is a paid-for spam website. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Have had a look, and I agree with . All of the page's current sources are unreliable: Metacritic is being misused as a source (I think WP:VG has some broad and good guidelines on that front), IMDB is not a reliable source, and the last source is a blog. I'd also like to note that the page's creator, User:Sageo, has a history of these, with 6 in the past 3 months: 1 (22 August 2020), 2 (22 August), 3 (22 October 2020, 4 (28 September 2020, 5 (28 September 2020, and 6 (13 October 2020).
 * I unconditionally support the deletion, but think there's something else that needs looking into here. ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Essentially a promotional piece without obvious assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG: not the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails all of WP:BIO: not widely cited by her peers for any notable achievement; hasn't originated any notable concept; has not produced a substantial body of creative work; not part of any exhibition or winner of significant critical attention. On which basis, not something that should be retained as an encyclopedia page -- Euryalus (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked for, but failed to find, significant coverage in reliable independent sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2020 (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.