Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Holloway (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. None of the "keep" voters were able to analyze the sources which make the article pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Maureen Holloway
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a local radio personality, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for radio personalities. This was closed no consensus in a prior discussion, because the only participant in the discussion argued that the things she has done met WP:GNG -- but GNG isn't a measure of the things the article says, it's a measure of the quality and depth of the sourcing that is or isn't being shown to support the things it says. But out of 10 footnotes here (one of which has two distinct references bundled into it, for a total of 11 sources), seven are primary sources self-published by her own employers or organizations that she was directly affiliated with as a patron, which are not support for notability at all, and two more are unrecoverable dead links -- and of the just two sources that are both reliable and readable, both are local coverage in her own media market, and one isn't about her in any substantive or notability-supporting way, but just briefly quotes her as a giver of soundbite in an article about the phenomenon of radio personalities taking time off. So there's only one source that's actually contributing toward notability at all, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I just had to click on the links above and enough sources popped up to convince me this person is sufficiently notable to meet WP:GNG. WCM email 09:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to just be counting text matches, and not actually applying the critical filters necessary to determine whether any given hit actually represents notability-building coverage or not. For instance, she gets just 16 hits total in the Google News search, of which:
 * several are press releases self-published by her own employers, which aren't notability-making sources as they aren't independent of her;
 * many are glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other people (she is not, for instance, the subject of, , , , or  in any notability-building way just because her name happens to appear in them);
 * several are purely coincidental name matches on different people who aren't this Maureen Holloway (she is not, for instance, the Maureen Holloway named in, or or );
 * the only three legitimately useful sources out of those 16 are two short same-day blurbs announcing her hiring for a job, both from limited circulation industry trade publications, and one source that was already addressed in my nomination statement because it's already in this article — and absolutely none of them are substantive enough to bring the GNG in and of themselves if they're the best sources that can be found.
 * So no, there aren't enough sources to meet GNG, if most of the sources that actually turn up are either unusable or irrelevant and the few acceptable ones aren't adequate. Bearcat (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You presume, incorrectly, what I did, I checked for sources about this individual. I found enough to convince me that WP:GNG was satisfied.  I would suggest that you allow others to comment. WCM email 12:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't "presume" anything you didn't say — you explicitly said that you saw GNG-worthy coverage in the "look for sources" links in the nomination header, and I responded with an assessment of what those same links actually produce. Firstly, it isn't enough to say you found GNG-worthy coverage — you have to show actual, concrete examples of what you perceive to be GNG-worthy hits, precisely because not every Google hit that exists is necessarily always a viable or useful or reliable or GNG-worthy source. And secondly, responding to a comment is in no way whatsoever a failure to "allow others to comment". Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further analysis of the sources v GNG.
 * Keep - Gosh - 168 hits on Proquest - many are trivial, but I didn't look too far. I added a GNG one from 2015 in the Sudbury Star. Given no one has added any references in over a decade, shouldn't be difficult to find more. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per WCM's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above reliable coverage is available to pass WP:GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Once you get past the PR sources, which outnumber the few sources that mention Holloway, not enough is left. Fails WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2021 (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.