Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tripp


 * 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 03:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Tripp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E. Her blog isn't notable apart from the viral controversy about her husband's Instagram post. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG. Article is well sourced and subject is indeed notable according to general notability guideline. In reply to Power~enwiki, a blog with a quarter of a million followers on Instagram and several mentions/links on major news sources is still notable, regardless of how it became notable. Deletion notice should be removed and article should remain. SantiagoPierre (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems the archetypical BLP1E. Article created by SPA acct that has another article on Tripp's husband waiting in the wings. Agricola44 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Take a look at Tanesha Awasthi or Barbie Ferreira articles. By direct comparison of references, mentions, partnerships, size of following, etc. Tripp is inarguably no less notable than these other figures with undisputed articles. SantiagoPierre (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is not a legitimate argument for notability. The subject must be notable of her own accord. While the web is certainly flooded with her pictures, with blogs, Twitter ephemera, etc., it is difficult to conclude that this person has been noted by independent, reliable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point on WP:WAX. However, doesn't change the fact that person is still of note in the blogger/body positive/fashion sphere, which is backed up by the 18 references cited in the article, including ABC News, TODAY Show, People Magazine, and E! News. How are these noted publications not strong enough as independent and reliable sources? The subject may not have Kardashian-level notability by any means, but to deny subject's visibility and notability for a Wiki article doesn't seem warranted. Tripp is clearly an established social media figure with enough note to warrant an article. SantiagoPierre (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete.We are not talking about whether she ought to be notable, but whether she is suitable for coverage in a WP article by our guidelines. The references are insufficiently reliable to show that.  DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG, non notable fashion blogger. Might as well put this in writing: I denounce ATD  L3X1  (distænt write)  02:51, 14 September 2017 (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.