Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Teitel (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. Also, as this was a subject requested deletion of a relatively unknown person, it falls under WP:BIODEL SpinningSpark 02:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Teitel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Requested deletion at User talk:Dancealongtheartery, and they don't seem notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * delete nomination seems in order; doesn't pass referenced policy guides cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as it seems there's hardly much better signs of obvious improvement here and this is another case of a long troubled article so WP:TNT at best. Notifying the only noticeably still active AfDer . SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's some minor coverage, and it local to Toronto. Given the lack of additional significant coverage, notability is not met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Local coverage doesn't take away from passing WP:GNG. That's not an argument to use in an AfD, . However, I don't know that the Torontoist is a RS and that's where she's covered the most. I can't say "Keep" if the sources in the article aren't RS, so if anyone knows for sure about the Torontoist, please weigh in and ping me. She may be WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it, is essentially an online magazine for local Toronto arts and culture, and would probably qualify as a reliable source. However, when considering notability, I would take into account the type and scope of coverage, and for me, what's out there is not sufficient. Other editors, may of course, come to another conclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do, for the record, sometimes use Torontoist for sourcing, but I use it the way I would use Now or Xtra!: reliable enough for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that's already been sourced over GNG, but not widely distributed enough to make an article suitable for Wikipedia if it actually has to carry the GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While she's certainly talented, I'm not seeing anything here that rises to the level of wider prominence needed to satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Since reference #3 (Toronto Star) led to a document summary rather than the actual text of the reference in question, I just ran a ProQuest check to find it — and it isn't actually "an article about her poetry", as claimed, but merely the text of one of her poems. So it doesn't actually count as media coverage about her at all. She garners just 17 other hits in that database — of which she's the bylined author, rather than the subject, of eight of them, and is merely namechecked in almost all of the remainder. So there's just no real sourcing out there with which this can be improved. Vaughan Today, a defunct weekly community newspaper, was in the same "okay for supplementary facts, but not able to bring the notability" class of sourcing that I alluded to in my response to Whpq; now it's doubly clobbered by the fact that the link's been cybersquatted by a non-notable blog and thus no longer even verifies the claims being cited to it. So the strongest source we've got here, in reality, is The Jewish Tribune — but that's (a) a deadlink, and (b) not actually being used to support anything in the article except the fact that she's Jewish, and thus still not actually contributing notability as such. So it's a delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can ever actually be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (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.