Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiana Danial


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Kiana Danial

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most of the coverage is based on primary sources: either her speaking as a subject-matter expert or giving interviews. In-depth secondary sources are lacking, and therefore, it fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. I managed to find this article, but it's of low quality and only discusses her event. I also failed to find independent reviews of her so-called best-selling books. Mercenf (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women,  and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, crypto spam. Natural G11 - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Has been crypto expert on fox for years.. Page has been ref siphoned as part of vandalism. Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war.. Both are from upwork.. He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. 135.148.232.242 (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear notable based on criteria as laid out by nominator. Probably created by undeclared paid editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * seems to have been - ScienceAdvisor, banned as a sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It is funny that you had to siphon off 10+ references from CNN, FOX, and other major sources before you decided to come in here and vote. You did no research and then come in and comment. She has been the crypto expert for fox news for 5 + years, nasdaq was link rot and you could have gone to web archive to replace it, and youtube videos from verified news accounts are viable references. This is nothing buy vandalism. References only need to be available and there are tons out there.. regardless if you are too lazy to source them. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2023 (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.