Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mika Simmons


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mika Simmons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NACTOR none of the sources even mention her. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Ritchie333, her podcast is quite famous, lots of mentions in several media, had been interviewed several times. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Being interviewed doesn't support notability (a source only supports her notability if it consists of other people talking about her in the third person, and not if it consists of her talking about herself in the first), being mentioned in media doesn't necessarily support notability (there's a difference between sources that are about her and sources that just mention her), and just asserting that her podcast is famous isn't a notability freebie that exempts anyone from actually having to source the significance of her podcast by demonstrating that it's been the subject of any third-party analysis of its importance. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Lancome did include her in their "40 powerful women", the silver Remi is now sourced, the charity is real and sourceable, profile in Telegraph behind a paywall: I think it adds up to notability. Pam  D  17:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm quite happy to be proved wrong here, but the in-depth coverage is pretty slim at the moment. Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment My primary intent was to extract WP:COI involvement in the article and remove promotional content. As for notability, I'm not convinced this meets WP:ENT. The point about lack of in-depth coverage is well taken. We generally do not put much weight in interviews as evidence of notability, although in this case at least two of the interviews were published in high profile magazines. My question is whether these and a few articles about the podcast are sufficient. I'm dubious. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Her podcast is well known and her acting credits are confirmed. There is a large amount of valid information out there about her as a professional actress and podcaster. See references:, , , , , , , StefB12 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read what constitutes a reliable source it does not include IMDb (user edited), United Agents (primary source), podcasts (primary source), playacts (primary source) and getty images (photographs are not sources). Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - easily passes notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as seemingly notable, but someone needs to comb through the history because due to COI editing the page has morphed significantly over the past week or so and we should make sure no sources get lost. Confusingly I found this discussion via the AfC helpdesk as the COI editor seemed to be pasting the matter in unrelated discussion forums (this was already in mainspace, yes?) BlackholeWA (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)