Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Neutral


 * 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 keep. Consensus to keep the article, particularly after a bit of clean-up was performed. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Grace Neutral

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tattoo artist with "70,000 Facebook likes". Presented one documentary. Doesn't meet the notability criteria, though.  Yinta n  19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. Too much reliance on self-created content like Facebook/Instagram. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO. Article contains original research and cites self-published materialMorganglick (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This person does pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG with continued significant coverage from independent sources like the Evening Standard, the Daily Record (Scotland), The Daily Mail, Yahoo! News and others. .  According to the Evening Standard, Vice  will have Neutral be one of it's main Viceland presenters. .  This is way beyond Facebook hits being a claim to fame.   Like it or not, this person passes our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt because, yes, although it was only 1 other deletion, it shows no one cared to take genuine reviewing steps for this, this giving us thoughts of either a G4 or 2nd AfD. The sources listed are simply entirely trivial and unconvincing, as is the current information here, they're simply focusing with triviality about her job and her own information thus trivial, regardless of publication and name. SwisterTwister   talk  16:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes it explicitly clear that current article condition is not a reason for deletion. The article was only created a day ago so that "no one cared to take genuine reviewing steps for this" is irrelevant not to mention nonsensical.  When a topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and thus passing WP:GNG, salting is out of the question.
 * Additionally, I just performed some WP:HEY work, removed most of the the content relied and Facebook/Instragram and replaced them with actual reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment - I noticed this AfD was created only a day after article creation. The sources listed above were found within seconds.  It appears that WP:BEFORE wasn't even attempted. --Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in view of the reliable sources provided such as The Evening Standard and Daily Record press coverage, the subject may not be academic but GNG should be applied fairly to all professions and not be too elitist or snobbish. New editors need help not a kick in the teeth. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This subject does pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Although there are references from her social media channels, she's been covered in reliable independent sources i-D and was featured documentary series for VICELAND like Oakshade mentioned above. Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There appears to be sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.  CBS 527 Talk 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as missing international articles in German, Portuguese. Also HN and Stuff. Will defer to other editors on removal of Instagram, POV bios. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2016 (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.