Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Pierson


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Olivia Pierson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I initially created Olivia Pierson to be a redirect to the reality show she was on. User Ciaragomez1 created the page in poor condition so I moved it to a draft for it to be properly worked on, not trash in the mainspace. Ciaragomez1 then recreated the page so now it has to be nominated for deletion as the subject at this time does not have enough reliable sources, least of all not of her employer, E!, outside of tabloidism of being a “WAG” (even that’s a stretch) for independent notability to have an article. Latching onto “we want to be Kanadian Kardashians” label is insufficient. I tried to be reasonable for once. ⌚️ (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - heavily refbombed and given the subject matter, likely to be undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both the draft and the article, refbombing, lots of non-rs sources, not independently notable, etc. Tknifton (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment Creator blocked for being an advertising only account. Tknifton (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this person easily warrants an article, but obviously the current article is garbage.  It was filled with spam, and after I tried removing the spam, there's nothing left.  But, this person is clearly notable, and a good article can be built.  They've been covered in sources like VICE and the Washington Post, not just E!Online, or NBC-affiliated properties (though it's hard to keep up with which media is owned by who).  There's no harm in keeping the article, now that the creator is blocked, but there's also no harm in deleting it, as long as people are free to make a new article in its place.  --Rob (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In its current state it should be speedily deleted. This rationale is contradictory. ⌚️ (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note I have nominated Draft:Olivia Pierson for speedy deletion under both g11 and g6 (as a technical deletion). Tknifton (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I came to this after the article had already been restubbed into something that basically doesn't even make any real notability claim at all anymore, so I want to clarify that I did look at the prior edit history — and what I'm seeing in it is largely primary sources, problematic sources like Refinery29 and Daily Hive, and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, all reference bombing an advertorial that reads like it was written by a PR agent. I suppose it's possible that a good article could be written about her — I doubt it, but I don't know nearly enough about the "knockoff Kardashian wannabes" genre of television to say for sure — but that article wasn't it. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do it right, but no version of the article to date has represented anybody doing it right. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete most people in reality TV are not notable, she is no exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2020 (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.