Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colette Baron-Reid


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Colette Baron-Reid

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a spiritualist and writer, not properly sourced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. This is based almost entirely on primary source content self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the claims (her own website about herself, her book sourced to its own publisher, events sourced to the self-published websites of their own organizers, etc.) with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real WP:GNG-worthy media. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the significance of their work has to be externally validated by GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them. And furthermore, the advertorialism here has been flagged since 2012 without being noticeably toned down in the entire decade since then. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourcing — but this, as written, is such a poorly sourced (self?)-promotional mess that even if legitimate GNG-worthy sourcing can be found to salvage it with, it would still need to be blown up and restarted from scratch regardless. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio,  and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: She's notable, , . The Jam showbiz one already present in the article is also a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which I acknowledged in my nomination statement was possible, but I was also 100 per cent accurate when I assessed the existing article as such a highly advertorialized mess that the WP:TNT (blow it up and start over from scratch) treatment would be necessary even if better sourcing could be found. As I noted, the article has been tagged for neutrality and advertorialism issues since 2012 without ever being deadvertorialized at all, and we shouldn't be keeping articles in that state for a decade — even for a notable topic, if the existing article is this bad we have to delete it and restart a new article from scratch, and cannot just leave the advertorialism to rot for another decade because nobody's fixing it. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , this happens more often, sources tend to appear only when the article has been AfD'd, that's when they decide to take the tag(s) more serious and work on the article, and to be honest it sucks, however with the presented sources I am leaning towards keep per Bridget.  dxneo  (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oaktree b Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television,  and Spirituality.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the articles found by Oaktree b are in-depth coverage of the subject, they are 2-3 paragraph articles about an appearance of the subject and no in-depth research or coverage. The Guardian article is the only article with any depth but its not an actual Guardian article but rather a book extract and thus does not count towards WP:SIGCOV. --hroest 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * keep based on the article rewrite and the new sources that include at least two in-depth articles. --hroest 20:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Oaktree B. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. I've found some articles from the early 2000s that could be used to rewrite the article (in addition to any already mentioned RSes): ; ; ; Bridget (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Article has been rewritten with better sourcing. Also found these articles from Fortune and Elle but I'm not too sure how they can be used. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote based on recent changes to the article. Bridget (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (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.