Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Lopez (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mariah Lopez
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails GNG; previous nomination withdrawn after people promised better sourcing. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable and the sourcing seems sufficient - I see nothing in the prior nomination that "promised better sourcing". Jooojay (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, for same reasons as explained in Joojay's comment.Rab V (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How is she "clearly notable"? Where is the significant, in-depth coverage of her? Because what she does is admirable doesn't mean she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please provide some links to show she meets GNG. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging and .  SwisterTwister   talk  01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you looking for that is better? The cited sources include The NY Times, NY Post, Huffington Post and etc... Nothing was promised to change, this seems like an unnecessary nomination. Jooojay (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's enough reliable sources to indicate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO, including significant mentions in NY Times, NY Daily News and NY Post. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough significant coverage to withhold notability. Fails WP:BIO.— UY Scuti Talk  11:14, 9 November 2015 (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.