Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginny McQueen


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ginny McQueen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person is not notable or "encyclopedic" in my opinion. Wade Hunter (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I could not find anything in a google search where multiple reliable sources discussed her. There are links to things she has written but there doesn't seem to be much written about her. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as article is properly sourced, subject is covered in multiple reliable third-party sources, and the notability threshold is well crossed. Google hits aren't a factor when the article is already source and "unencyclopedic" is never a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually "unencyclopaedic" is a long used shorthand for being contrary to What Wikipedia is not. Of course, without an explanation of what, specific, part of the policy applies, it's not a good rationale.  Hence the shorthand has in recent years dropped out of use. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no avail second or third party sources and fails guidelines WP:GNG. Tree Karma (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article includes multiple third-party sources, including interviews by MTV and Fandomania, the latter done well before she joined its staff. - Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you square that with Dravecky's statement that such sources exist and are even cited in the article? Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Subject appears to pass the general notability guidelines of being covered by multiple third-party sources, if not the subject-specific guideline WP:ENTERTAINER, possibly in part because the latter wasn't really written with this kind of entertainer in mind. But GNG is sufficient to say keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A Fan's View is the personal website of Kevin Lillard, who regularly wrote about conventions and cosplayers for NewType USA and later PiQ, so it passes the self-published expert test as a reliable source. As of yet, I can't gauge the reliability of Fandomania. I also think it should be noted that the only edits to Wikipedia by the nominator is to delete this article. --Farix (Talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The MTV link confirms her notability.  D r e a m Focus  15:46, 7 July 2009 (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.