Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coral Short


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Coral Short

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a performance artist, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability as opposed to mere existence — and further, the sourcing here is almost entirely to non-notable blogs rather than reliable source media coverage. Even the one publication here that can ever actually count for anything whatosever, Curve, in this instance just offers a blurby little four question mini-interview rather than a genuinely substantive article about her. But it's a longstanding principle of AFD that because they represent the subject talking about herself, and thus are subject to the same problems that apply to self-published public relations profiles, interviews cannot count toward getting an article subject over WP:GNG — that source would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the rest of the sourcing around it was already solid enough to satisfy GNG, but her notability has not been properly demonstrated if it's the only valid source you have to offer. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be fixed, but this version of the article is not sourced well enough to be considered keepable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now perhaps as this is questionably notable and perhaps simply not improvable enough for a better article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some more meat to the article with better references from an academic paper and the queer print press (see Xtra!) Car Henkel (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the two Xtra articles you added, one is substantively about her while the other just namechecks her existence a single time in an article about something else — which means that the second one doesn't count toward GNG at all, and the first one counts as one point toward a GNG score that's still sitting at one because none of the other sources count for anything. And the "academic paper" citation may suffer from the same problem — is she a major subject of it, or does she just get glancingly namechecked on page 94 of a work that isn't otherwise about her? I can't tell without seeing the text of the book for myself, but it does make a difference. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PDF of thesis can be downloaded here. (Inserted link in article.) It's more than a passing mention. I was unaware of a point system for WP:GNG. Where can I learn more? Car Henkel (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It takes several — not just one — sources which are substantively about the subject — not just blurbs or passing mentions — to pass GNG. There's no points checklist per se, but it does take multiple substantive sources before GNG is met. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or userfy I think there's a lot of coverage, but she's not a mainstream artist which makes this a much tougher case. Performance art has never been a heavily covered subject since it's not collectible and is ephemeral and therefore of less value to our culture. That's she's a queer performance artist complicates it further. I'm not saying those are reasons to keep, but things to keep in mind when evaluating the article. I think she just barely passes GNG and if the closer disagrees, I'd plead to userfy the article as possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON since much of her coverage is recent. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Have no issue with userfying if there is a willing editor, as 's WP:TOOSOON comment is a possibility.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete weak sourcing that does not really go beyond existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:31, 14 December 2015 (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.