Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Barlow


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Eve Barlow

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

Individual has not met notability guidelines, with no solid demonstrations of notability provided even after months of having an active page. Relevant reporting seems to be extremely limited to the fallout of the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trials, and most of that reporting is in tabloids and celeb gossip rags. Pretty much anything else that turns up about the article subject is her own writing or social media pages. Best case scenario, it may be possible to merge what brief information there is into the related articles. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Scotland,  and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Page has had a notability tag for over a year now and yet nobody has been able to add anything relevant to justify her having her own Wikipedia page. A search online provides little of note aside from a mention in the Johnny Depp trial and some coverage of a Twitter storm about posts she made. Nothing to suggest that she is notable in the wider sense or that there is any real prospect of anything being added to redeem the stub article. Little Professor (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. She was in the news a while ago, when she made some posts online, someone called her a silly name ("Eve Fartlow"), a bunch of people were stupid on Twitter; she wrote an op-ed for Tablet describing this as a "social media pogrom"; this op-ed was covered (and harshly criticized) in The Nation, and apparently some even more asinine Twitter drama unfolded, somehow involving Seth Rogen, which is described in greater detail on some goofy and extremely angry gossip site I found online . I don't know. Maybe all of this stuff amounts to significant coverage. But all of this stuff seem to focus on a very stupid and very embarrassing episode in the life of someone who is otherwise not very notable. Whether or not her response to being called "Eve Fartlow" was reasonable or undignified is -- I mean, let's be real here -- this is literally elementary school nonsense for the sake of gawking lol. jp×g 06:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No compelling claim to notability. 128.252.212.40 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability. Equine-man (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with nominator and others above that the individual does not appear to have the sort of notability that would justify an article. The coverage out there all seems to be of incidents that are trivial. Dunarc (talk) 20:47, 13 August 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.