Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D Michelle Gent


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

D Michelle Gent

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self-published author of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, social media, unreliable sources and sales /directory links, but little significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gent does not pass the guidelines for either WP:AUTHOR or WP:POLITICIAN. I went through the sources on the articles and the ones that I left are trivial at most and do not show how Gent is any more notable than any other locally elected politician. As far as writing goes, there's nothing out there to show that Gent has any notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. If the original article creator is the author, someone who is personally involved with her (agent, family, friends, etc), or someone paid to edit on her behalf, I would highly recommend that you read WP:COI. The only reason I mention this is that Gent has low visibility in both the literary and political worlds and in these cases the editor is usually someone personally involved with the person being added or is the person themselves. There's no rule against adding an article under these circumstances but it is discouraged to do so without a non-involved third party and it is encouraged for you to admit the relationship up front.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete - The reference titled "national press coverage" contains nothing more than a quote from a news interview with this person. Searching news archives comes up with something from 'www.goodreads.com' and that's it.  There are some books published from this author, but nothing that would meet WP:AUTHOR.  Fails WP:GNG.  MisterRichValentine    (talk)  19:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Yaloe meets standard of interest  —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC). — Yaloe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. The article creator made a reply here, but it misses the point. Self-published authors are not automatically non-notable, but it does mean you have to demonstrate notability some other way. With zero coverage from independent reliable sources as an author (self-written/published web pages don't count) and one incidental mention as a councillor, falls well short of notability on both fronts. And this is coming from someone who's a writer in a similar situation. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have contacted D Michelle Gent and she is not bothered at all with Wiki and says if this is not suitable then she does not ever want to be on Wiki. I made the page to allow people that search and use a popular online source of information to be able to find her. I did not use it for advertisement and placed only true facts on the page. It is no longer true now that Tokyogirl edited it and I do not have the time to continue posting other details at this moment in time. When it was first moved for deletion the main thing pointed out was 'self published' not it did not comply with guidelines. Michelle has 3 full novels on book shelves, 6 short stories. Is sub editor for 2 magazines and is currently writing 2 books for films and 2 for her series. She worked on 3 films last year and just played a lead roll in one due out later this year. She just completed a screenplay for a short film. She had her own TV show on Sky TV last year. None of which is found in the press. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulwike (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not a person wants to have an article devoted to his or herself on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion nor does it have to do with the deletion process. I think I speak for everybody involved in this discussion when I say that nobody thinks you put false information on the page.  However, just because a page contains information that is accurate, that does not mean that the subject of the page is notable.  MisterRichValentine    (talk)  00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add, a TV programme might be a better claim to notability, depending on exactly what it was and what her role actually was. Even if that isn't enough to make her notable, the TV programme might be, in which case you might be able to redirect her to that article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "She had her own TV show on Sky TV last year. None of which is found in the press" - not found on her website/blog either: a search turned up a mention that someone from SkyTV called someone she knew, but nothing more. Doing a Google search on either "D. Michelle Gent" "Sky TV" or "Michelle Gent" "Sky TV" doesn't show anything reliable - the closest I can find is her doing a booksigning at an event where someone called "Sky TV's Paranormal investigator" also appeared. No indication they were connected - just appearing at the same event. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable as an author, not notable as a politician. I'm relying on Mike's analysis that there are no further sources to be found.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 3 March 2012 (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.