Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Kaiser (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. and salt KTC (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Shannon Kaiser
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of an author who does not appear to be notable. New sources have appeared since the previous AfD, but none of them actually indicates notability. The two that come closest are the Portland Tribune ones, but this is clearly based on a press release and this doesn't cut it on its own - in addition, although it is an independent source, it is a piece in a local paper about a local author. The article is apparently written as an autobiography, and it is kind of promotional as well. But the real issue with it is lack of notability. bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. For full disclosure, I was made aware of this AfD on my usertalk since I took part in the last AfD. That said, not much has changed since the last AfD. Despite the claims in the article, Kaiser hasn't really gained any true coverage for herself. She's written and been published and she's been brought on to various media outlets in order to talk about various different things but during all of this she's never really been the focus of any in-depth coverage. Her appearances on various news shows has been the type of "today we're going to talk about ________ and here today to talk about ___________ we have an expert, Shannon Kaiser". In other words, she was brought on to be a living reference to whatever the news outlet was discussing at that point in time (usually better living type stuff), but at no point were those news spots actually about her, which is what we'd need to show notability. Being a reliable source for something doesn't mean that the person is automatically notable, nor does publishing in notable outlets. This makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage and thus notability, but it isn't a guarantee - which is what we're seeing here. You'd think that with the huge amount of effort Kaiser has put in to making herself visible on various shows that she'd have garnered more attention than what she has, but she hasn't. Now given that this is the second time that the article has been created and that it was created by (presumably) the author herself, I'd recommend salting this to discourage re-creation before the notability threshold has been reached. Ms Kaiser, I do sympathize with you but notability guidelines on here are very, very strict and most wouldn't pass GNG, including many multi-million dollar business people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt as per . My sweeps did not yield anything that suggests she meets the WP:GNG, current article full of dubious sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt as per . BlueSalix (talk) 14:02, 16 January 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.