Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dashama Konah Gordon


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Dashama Konah Gordon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed, IP added extensive promotional edits with poor sourcing. PROD reason was: "poorly sourced BLP, and subject does not seem to be notable." The added references are to non-RSes. A quick WP:BEFORE shows four GNews hits total on "Dashama Konah Gordon", and GNews hits on "Dashama" are generally not of the subject or not in RSes. This should be deleted. David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Almost all of the references listed are not independent or reliable - directories, social media, IMDb, primary websites, press releases, etc. This is purely promotional, as evidenced by the extensive use of puffery. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There's enough material here at least for a notable stub. A ton of cleanup is required to get rid of all the obvious WP:PROMO content, but an article needing serious work is not grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is flooded with mostly useless citations. I gave up after looking at the first 30 citations. Most did not even mention the subject of this article, and many others had only a passing mention of her name. I didn't see anything that really contributed to establishing notability for her. - Donald Albury 16:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added comment I have gone back and looked at all of the sources still cited in the article, except for the videos at UN Web TV (I have trouble hearing video), and I still do not see anything of substance in reliable sources (the blogs don't count, as, per WP:SPS, we "[n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"). - Donald Albury 21:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've gone back and deleted a lot of the cruft. It doesn't help the article to spam it with irrelevant refs that are either A)non-notable or B) don't actually mention the article subject, but what's left provides a workable basis for a marginally notable yoga expert and I think there's enough coverage to get over the WP:GNG bar. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have nominated this for AFI as a start-class article. Not doing any more to save it beyond that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, which seems to be the primary claim to notability. Writing a book is not enough, it has to generate WP:SIGCOV. Searches persuade me of her lack of notability.  mere WP:PROMO for a non-notable yoga teacher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As the person who originally placed the PROD, I still stand by that the article is not neutral or notable. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 19:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you that the article is not neutral. But WP:PROMO is not grounds for deletion. However I do think the subject probably (barely) meets WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Simonm223; if you want to persuade me, bring some examples of the SIGCOV you're seeing and feel free to ping me.  I'm always willing to change an opinion at AfD when someone does that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, the subject is barely if at all mentioned in any reliable sources. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 19:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I just did a harsh edit - - cut (a)all unsourced material, (b) all material sourced to non-RSes, (c) all material showing only e.g. existence of an event or book and not its third-party RS notability. This leaves the article very skimpy, because it was puffed up before. Before putting stuff back, please find third-party RSes for it - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm amazed this is even being discussed still. I removed more irrelevant material from the entry. She was a minor panelist, one of several packing a 15 minute panel taking place during a 2-day event. She once taught a class in a Yoga festival. This is notability? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Zero independent sources. Notability has clearly not been met. Fails WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2018 (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.