Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Kindelan


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Katie Kindelan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a journalist, which just states that she exists and sources the fact to one primary source and two glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, but must be properly sourced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion -- but this is not how you source a person as a notable journalist. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sure it's a stub, but stub articles are valid articles. Page is referenced in other pages on Wikipedia, so there is impact to the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A person needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about her, not just nominally verifiable as existing, to qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article — and simply having her name mentioned in other Wikipedia articles is not a notability criterion that automatically entitles a person to have a standalone biography either, if that article can't be expanded and properly sourced into something more substantive than "Katie Kindelan is a person who exists". Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I only looked through about the first half-dozen pages of results, but all of it appears to be content written by the person and not content written about the person. Besides that, incoming wikilinks don't determine notability, and the article as is currently stands it very close to WP:A7 territory.  G M G  talk   13:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be reasonable. An assertion of notability is made in the stub article.  It's nowhere near A7.  You may certainly disagree that the subject is notable (and you do) that's fine.  But A7?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite close. Articles that state simply John Doe is a person who does a job. are fairly regularly A7, and a relationship with a notable company is usually only sufficient to avoid A7 if they claim a central role (e.g., John Doe is the CEO of Notable Company, but usually not John Doe has worked for Notable Company for 20 years.). The reason this would likely avoid A7 is because they are media companies, and so it may be more likely that she has received coverage herself in the media. Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to have, and except for a case like WP:NPROF, writing a lot doesn't establish notability if your 9 to 5 job is to write; it just means you're a person who showed up to work and did your job.  G M G  talk   16:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There's not any coverage that I could find that is about her, including in databases. No prejudice against recreation when RS are available about her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2017 (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.