Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riva-Melissa Tez


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Riva-Melissa Tez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

article is self-promotion and the sources in no way meet the reliability standards for Biographies of Living Persons Uakari (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as it stands I just went through every reference, they're almost all bad - self-sourced, promotional, directories, personal biography entries the subject would have written, etc. Main reference is a blog post of an interview, excerpted from a forthcoming self-published book; second is a couple of interviews in a "lifestyle" freesheet. I'm finding pretty much nothing outside the transhumanist subculture, and not a huge amount inside - she writes and advocates a lot, but pretty much nobody writes about her. I'm willing to be convinced, but none of this does - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - possible sources:, , , , . --Fixuture (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * TechCrunch is an internal promotional piece on a TC conference, not an RS; Psychology Today is an op-ed promotional piece by Zoltan Istvan. Both are already in the article, duly tagged with their problems. Of the others, Huffington Post is another Istvan promotional blog that literally says "blog" at the top. Upstart piece is on BizJournals, who are a notorious source of sponsored content and not considered an RS for notability purposes, and is in the article (and duly tagged). Medium piece is a blog post, promoting a nonnotable book (and is in the article and is duly tagged). None of this seems to pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (for all the reasons already mentioned, in case there was any doubt!)Uakari (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources are not reliable. Huffpost is a contributor article, Bizjournals are notorious for publishing redressed press releases, Techcrunch is churnalism and a routine bio lifted from somewhere (the source is redressed PR with stuff like Eligible daytime conference ticket holders will receive an invite to upgrade their ticket to include this. Email TheEuropas@gmail.com for details., Psychology today is by the same contributor of the Huffpost blog who seems to have an interest in promoting their book. Medium is an WP:SPS. No solid secondary sources in any reliable media. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 1 November 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.