Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lane (television personality) (2nd nomination)


 * 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! 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Lane (television personality)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journalist; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All references provided link to employers, her own blog, or primary works by the author, not meeting WP:GNG/WP:N, as well as WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER requirements. Was previously nominated for AFD 10 years ago, and the discussion (more like voting "keep" because they had heard of her, not because she had enough independent significant coverage) had no policy basis at all. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sure that WP:NACTOR applies, but fails WP:GNG WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be seen by inspection that this is an on-screen tech reporter who has appeared not only in local broadcasts in the Silicon Valley tech market of San Jose; but has appeared for years on various national broadcasts.  Just to be sure I wasn't missing something, a search on Gbooks for ["Sarah Lane" TechTV] provides the snippet, "For the underground geek audience, late-bloomer Kevin and Sarah were like Brad and Angelina."  This topic has been attracting the attention of the world at large for a dozen years (WP:N).  As reported in the first AfD, there is a body of coverage available regarding Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That Google Book "snippet" was just that, a mention. Definitely does not qualify as significant coverage towards meeting WP:GNG.  Citing the broadcast work itself also does not matter, since it's not independent of the subject.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, a "snippet" is not the same as a "mention". As for the implication that WP:N is constrained by WP:GNG, no, wp:notability is defined in the lede of WP:N as a topic which is "worthy of notice".  I'm not arguing to WP:GNG here, I'm arguing directly to WP:N, as amplified in the nutshell.  The proof by assertion of what qualifies as significant coverage also falls because significant coverage is defined by the guideline, not by what Wikipedia editors claim is significant.  Significant coverage within WP:GNG includes single sentences that are not defined as trivial coverage, and is a fairly low bar.  Further, WP:N does not require independent sources, that is a WP:GNG issue.  TV audiences are created by the choice of viewers, and not by the broadcaster, so are independent in any case.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying exactly here, but the article does still fail WP:GNG. --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. All of the references provided in the article are self-referential. An online search turned up a short article in Wired but otherwise nothing, except lots of articles about other people by the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2014 (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.