Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Vogel


 * 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Vogel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Potentially notable, but no real sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the author, Michelle Vogel, and I can confirm that all of the information and links on my author page is true and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleVogel (talk • contribs) 8:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just in case you aren't aware, while technically the subject of a Wikipedia page can be the author, this normally falls foul of policies related to objectivity, independence and neutrality. "information and links" being "true and correct" are not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia: please familiarise yourself with the relevant policies here WP:GNG :-) . Cabrils (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if we assume everything is true, she fails WP:SIGCOV, period. We need significant coverage in independent and reliable sources about a living person. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR#3 as her works have been the subject of critical attention, e,g, this review in Film Quarterly Vol. 66, No. 3 (2013) and this one in DAEIDA (2010). pburka (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added a bunch of IRS refs and I think the page satisfies GNG. Cabrils (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR#3 - cited and referenced as the only author who has debunked the myth that Lupe Velez died with her head in the toilet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfLPpXkr-Mk&t=1s (Hidden Hollywood (Quote below video): "So happy you watched this, Michelle! Lupe deserves her truth and story to be set straight! I found your book to be one of the only forms of Lupe content worth trusting outside of her own film work" - AND - http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/2018/12/17/lupe-velez-fake-news-fact-checking-hollywood-babylon-episode-14?fbclid=IwAR37rFNE9HSyhDSgrR_rVLQKjDi9SxfER8UDM-cwEdUxVt-gWi2449I1noY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:480A:DB00:169:A7B9:B4AF:B379 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep why do editors always quote "SIGCOV" for bios as without reading the rest of WP:Basic? In the case of this AFD she passes WP:AUTHOR#3 after WP:Hey.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, just a reminder, WP:AUTHOR#3 also requires a person's work/s to be significant/well known, with a lot of Vogel's works being held by around 100 libraries worldwide (ie. Lupe Vélez, Marilyn Monroe, Olive Thomas, Marjorie Main, Gene Tierney) that part of #3 is met. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/mexican-spitfire-lupe-velez/ - Michelle Vogel is quoted as "the biographer of Lupe Velez in the afore-mentioned "LAMag.com" article. #3 is met. She has significant and recognized recognition in the industry as THE biographer of Lupe Velez.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:480A:DB00:5D11:D78F:9949:3002 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 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.