Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph Adams


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Steph Adams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional material about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Nothing has been written about her career on reliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Yuk. We have to stop treating the lifestyle section of otherwise usable sources as a WP:RS. No substance whatsoever. Mduvekot (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Note that article was created by the subject of the article via a move from her user page. Netherzone (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Delete. The problem with assessing articles on people who have been successful in the media like this is that it is often difficult to separate coverage by the person from coverage about the person.  In this case, there is a long list of sources in the article, but as far as I can tell they're either from entities that are not independent (such as her publisher), or they are not primarily about Adams; they're on her book, or her other work.  This isn't to suggest that she's not a talented individual, but I don't see that she meets the WP:GNG yet.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete per above comments. A super hot lady that is talented-- and with at least one good looking co-author (I could be a fan)-- might be encyclopedic to those that like food, or to a select other few, but at this time sources don't appear to be there to satisfy the Wikipedia inclusion criteria, for an encyclopedia. If there is doubt about separating reliable sources "by her" or "about her" then, since this is a BLP, we default to not enough coverage at this time for notability. Also --"best seller" appears to be book selling advertisement. Her other writings besides the "best selling book" so far-- has been associated with "table top magazine" writings. Ref-bombing 26 general references, without a single inline citation would likely, in the real Wikipedia world where BLP's are held to a higher standard for sources and citations, should have probably resulted in some speedy delete anyway. Given time I am sure there will be more interest, more books (just one book seems to not satisfy other criteria like WP:BIO1E-- as noted by the last paragraph there) and co-authors, more notability, and sources other than Penguin Random House or Amazon (like New York best seller list), to verify actual "best seller", and I am sure she will return. Otr500 (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete basically an advertisement, and with borderline notability at best  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 1 July 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.