Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita Pam Tarachi


 * 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. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rita Pam Tarachi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She appears to fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any evidence of notability. I tried all I could to find reliable sources that established her notability but all to no avail. The only reliable source I found is the very brief mention in the Nigerian Tribune. The author's description ( "world class reference") is a reflection of his personal view. I don't see that as an evidence of notability. I also have concerns over User:Adrian 8076's behavior towards other editors on this same subject but that will be a different debate. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: per reasons cited by nominator. --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think being nominated for a Shorty Award is nearly enough to make the case for notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of this has any better signs of better satisfying the applicable notability, still questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  15:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this person is notable enough for an article at this point in time. There's an assertion of notability, but not one that's sourced enough to currently pass notability guidelines. Here's my rundown of the article's sources:


 * Hope House. This is primary, so cannot show notability. It can be used to back up basic details, but that's about it. Right now what you need to prove is notability and working for or launching a charity does not automatically give notability.
 * Tribune Online. This is a newspaper, however Tarachi is only briefly mentioned in the article. While the article makes the assertion of "world class reference", this isn't entirely enough to assert notability and at most it could be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source. It does give off the impression that there might be other sources, but this by itself wouldn't be enough to give notability under these circumstances. The only time that trivial sources can give notability is when they're stating something incredibly noteworthy, like a very major award.
 * Reader's Favorite. This company charges money to review. Authors can get a review for free, but there's a definite emphasis on the paid reviews. Also pretty telling is that the site refuses to give out anything below four stars, so it's not really reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Virtue Christian Book Awards. This award would not give notability on Wikipedia for several reasons. The first is that it was very recently launched, in 2014. The second is that a search brings up no coverage about the award to show that it would be considered notable. However what sets it as a non-notable award is that the site sells reviews, interviews, and other features to authors. A site that accepts money, even if it's not for the award, is almost never considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. The rare exceptions are places that are extremely well covered in the media and are considered to be institutions. The VCBA is not one of these institutions.
 * Hope House. This is a primary source and cannot show notability.
 * Hollywood Reporter. Now the Shorty Awards are an example of an award that would grant notability on Wikipedia, however being nominated for an award will not give notability on Wikipedia. This guideline came about because there were cases of awards where massive amounts of people were getting nominated for awards, but didn't win - and that was their only major claim to fame. Eventually it came about that only winning an award would give notability rather than getting nominated. Of course, getting nominated for something is usually a sign that there may be more coverage out there, especially since many papers and media outlets will cover nominees in the hopes that the extra visibility will help the person win and because a nomination means that there's likely interest in a specific area.
 * Shorty Awards. This is her page for the SA. This could be used to back up the claims that she was nominated and maybe some basic data, but in this situation it cannot show notability.


 * There are some interviews via Vents Magazine, however I'm not entirely sure that the site would be a RS. What concerns me the most are things like the magazine's contact e-mail having a hotmail.com domain. Its about page also contains html errors like "Rafa[symposium-profile][symposium-forum][symposium-members][symposium-mail]". I brought it up at WP:RS/N and they pointed out a few things that would make it potentially a WP:SPS, including the fact it's hosted via WordPress. So ultimately what we have here is someone who has a few things to their name that makes it seem like they may pass notability guidelines at some point in the future, but none of the sources are strong enough to really pass at this point in time. Essentially all we have a primary sources, trivial mentions, and things that wouldn't be considered a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Awards don't seem significant. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2016 (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.