Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Grant




 * 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. BD2412 T 04:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Phyllis Grant

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

brought to my attention after an account claiming to be the subject requested deletion (User:Balin80) at the help desk, but either way i don't see how this should be an article. only two of the references are about the subject while the rest are just passing mentions. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 23:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no assertion of notability that meets our criteria, so the weakness of the references is irrelevant.-Arch dude (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, Comics and animation,  and Canada.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article provides little evidence of notability. My searches for more have found nothing better. This is the best I found, but it's not independent. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not enough all by itself, certainly, but I don't see how the CBC isn't independent. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete and I'm fine with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE thinking here per the Help_desk discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see delsorting was already done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists. The suvject wanting the article deleted does not help inclusiin, but even if the subject wanted the article to stay I do not see grounds to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent news sources in the search results other than tabloids about another Phyllis Grant. lol1VNIO ( I made a mistake? talk to me &#8226; contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Strictly speaking, the subject's desire to not have a Wikipedia article isn't relevant — if a person has strong and properly sourced evidence of passing our notability criteria, then we have to keep an article regardless of their personal wishes. And while there are things stated here that would probably count as valid notability claims if they were properly referenced to reliable sources (i.e. media coverage about her and her work), there's nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to justify relying entirely on primary sources like this — but even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not have googled, I'm just finding coverage in community hyperlocals around Bathurst/Miramichi and/or coincidental text matches on other unrelated people, rather than nationalizing WP:GNG-worthy coverage. And even the CBC hit proffered above, while fine as it goes, is still far from enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (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.