Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Short


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Kayla Short

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:AUTHOR. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 07:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion is unfounded. Kayla Short is considered a notable person per Wiki guidelines. Please refer to references, and Fashion Blog for impact assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halifax1749 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article when she's the subject of reliable source coverage. "Fashion Blog" is a blog, not a media outlet, so it can't cover off notability, and the only sources present in the article are a directory of her own contributions to another blog, her own primary source website about herself, and a local alt-weekly's "Best Local Stuff" reader poll — which means the only source that's independent of her is a blurb. A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article by self-publishing her own web presence; she qualifies for an article when she's been given enough attention by media independent of her to pass WP:GNG, but none of the sourcing present here shows anything of the sort whatsoever. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better — but this, as written, isn't even beginning to show the type, let alone the volume, of sourcing required. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:23, 20 July 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.