Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Cohen


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete -- JForget  23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cindy Cohen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Author of one book of dubious notability, appeared in a made for TV movie as "green eyed girl." Is currently appearing in a reality show, for which no participants have articles (including from the previous winner). In short, no reliable secondary sources discuss this topic in any detail. This article was created by the request of the subject with the promise of a $75 dollar payment. --Leivick (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009
 * Keep references 1 and 3 are reliable and verifiables Rirunmot (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Reference 1 is 404 (and still is a press release presumably from the subject) and all reference 3 verifies is that she had a very minor role in a made for TV movie. --Leivick (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources, no real claim to notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Delete - multiple reliable sources available, I added a few. Postoak (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yikes, I added several sources that I could find that I thought might possibly save the article, however the fact that this article was created by a paid request did not "register" until now. I wish to change my recommendation. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete One 81 page self-published "book"? Just a beginning contestant in a TV show. One extremely minor movie role.   Zero reliable references. The "Forbes" reference is from their PR newsletter, which counts for absolutely nothing, and it's just PR for the show where she;s presently just one of the contestants.  I would consider it a G11, promotional speedy.  It's thissort of article which discredits the already dubious concept of paid editing.   I think the subject should get her money back.      DGG (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable, as per WP:BIO. Sources aside, it's simply not a encyclopedic subject.  And paying people to spam Wikepedia is reprehensible. akaDruid (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I became aware of this article since an editor asked what to do about it at WP:COIN. My response there was that it does not meet WP:BIO, unless there is something important about her career that has not been included here. She was in a made-for-TV movie, Soulkeeper, but IMDB's entry for that movie does not mention her (so she didn't have a major role). EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have checked out the references on the page and while the number of references seem impressive at first glance, the references themselves don't meet WP:RS. The only possible exception is the Columbus Dispatch, but that alone is not enough. Her only legitimate shaky claim to notability is as a contestant on a reality show, but unless more coverage can be found for that, she clearly fails WP:BIO. --  At am a chat 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make a suggestion one way or another. As the writer, the only thing I'll say is that unless this is a space issue, any potential topic can be an encyclopedic topic. I didn't do this to drum up promotion for this person; at several points, I stayed away from adding information that would be promotional, though I didn't do as good of a job as the editors who followed. If it gets deleted, I'll return the money. I did it because I considered Wikipedia to have a broad enough reach to include someone like this subject. If there's only so much space to go around, then yes, the article should be removed. But there are plenty of examples of people only famous because of reality television who have articles that would also be considered promotional (Coral Smith, Becky Blasband, Mohamed Bilal to name a few). Just because The Real World is more popular and probably has a younger, more tech-savvy audience that would be more likely to write Wiki articles doesn't mean its contestants shouldn't be held to the same standard as a show with a different viewing demographic. Proportionally, it's obvious that this person is not deserving of a lot of space. But that doesn't mean she's not deserving of an article, particularly since the precedent of other only-notable-because-of-reality-TV people has allowed those people to have articles. If the content meets the standards, intent is irrelevant. User:Gkerkvliet
 * I agree with you that if the content meets the standard, the manner of editing is irrelevant. I suppose under the principles of free enterprise that the paid editors who judge rightly will be the ones that prosper. But perhaps that's unfair since it is true that our judgements are not all that predictable or consistent. The concept that anyone's life can be encyclopedic if treated in detail by a writer with full access to interviews and primary sources is possibly correct, but that's the province of original research. The idea that we should include literally everybody with whatever information is verifiable, is not what people expect in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, necessarily, but it's not what we're out to do. DGG (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read WP:OSE and WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and space isn't really a concern, that's true. But it's also not a place to store every piece of information about everything imaginable. It's a repository of knowlege, and there are policies and guidelines to help define what is considered actual "knowlege". You're correct that if the content meets the standards, intent is irrelevant, but we're not even judging the content so much as the subject. By the way, you did your job, and didn't do a bad job, so keep the money! --  At am a chat 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Clearly fails WP:BIO, paid spam. ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -- Book is tiny and self-published through a notorious vanity press so fails WP:AUTHOR, only roles are insignificant in the extreme (so fails WP:ACTOR), and the sources here are all apparently self-published in one way or another (directly, press releases, sites allowing reviews/releases from the subject) and fail WP:RS rules (thus making the article fail WP:GNG standards). Probably should have been a speedy delete for outright marketing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Snow close anyone? Bueller? Bueller? – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. Algébrico (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (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.