Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmaine Sinclair (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. ST47 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Charmaine Sinclair
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think being Robert De Niro's gf is sufficient claim to fame to justify such a thin BLP. Fails GNG and ENT. In case anyone argues GNG for being a gf, I would counter with NOTINHERITED and BLP1E Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Of the current sources in the article, I can discern only two which seem to be reliable and independent: the interview from The Independent (in which she is described as being involved in a documentary) and the 2014 De Niro book. Therefore, it nothing else, BLP1E does not apply, and there is just enough coverage to meet GNG since there are 2 (therefore "multiple") sources. Previous AfD commentators seem to have found more coverage from other reliable sources. Though these have not been added to the article, I see no convincing reason to doubt they exist (especially if some of them relate to the celebrity gossip in which article subject was involved in the 90s) - the weakness of this argument is that nobody seems to have taken the time to take a look at those over the past 8 years: that could however be a case of WP:NEGLECT, which is not an argument for deletion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An interview is not an independent source to meet N or GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference, the source is ; The title is "Interview" but it is far more than just questions and answers. In fact most quotes from subject are related indirectly as part of commentary by the journalist on related issues - thus it is a secondary source, if that is your concern. I fail to see how such a source published in an undeniable RS publication would fail to meet WP:GNG; in summary and to be exhaustive, it is a whole article about the subject [significant coverage, first criteria] in a reliable publication [criterias 2 and 3] which does not appear to be promotional in nature and is not written by someone directly affiliated with the subject (rather, a journalist which should be bound by the professional standards of her profession) [criteria 4]. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete interviews do not add to notability, there are clearly not enough valid sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. WildCh ild300 Talk  23:59, 28 June 2019 (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.