Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karis McLarty


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Karis McLarty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a lawyer and musician, relying almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources with extremely little evidence of real media coverage which properly verifies that she would pass either WP:MUSICIAN or WP:LAWYER. Only two citations in the entire article, in fact, are to a source that would pass muster, and even those two are (1) a passing mention of her name in a "hottest downloads of the day" column and (2) a "what are you wearing?" fashion blurb — so even those fail to constitute substantive coverage. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can create a good and properly sourced article about her, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: When this article was nominated, WP:LAWYER redirected to Notability (law), a recently written draft proposal. The target of that redirect has since been changed. WP:LAWYERS is unaffected. As the author of that draft proposal, I think that I should say that it isn't intended to be completely exhaustive. James500 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added some more references to establish the notability of the subject. The sources it contains are enough for keeping the article. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. You added even more primary and unreliable sources — blogs and YouTube videos mostly, with the added bonus of a circular reference (#3) to a site that asserts Wikipedia as its reference (I hope I don't have to point out why that's not acceptable) — and failed to add even one new source that actually passes the reliable sourcing test. Bearcat (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These secondary sources provide enough significance to the subject. link, link, link, Link, link, link - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Those are still all non-notable blogs and PR profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly associated with, and still don't pass our reliable sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * DELETE - A pretty exhaustive look found no more citations that support notability. Remember - a delete today is not necessarily permanent, often it's a "not yet". But Wikipedia articles are not to be used to create notability but as information on subjects that are already notable. EBY (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's an avalanche of sources in the article, but look at them carefully (or at all, really), and they don't measure up. There are casual mentions, and blog posts, and quotes from the subject, but nothing by way of articles from substantive reliable sources discussing the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. This still fails WP:BIO. Nha Trang 20:32, 6 October 2014 (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.