Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Grey (3rd 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. This time, we will be using the salt shaker. Courcelles 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Veronica Grey
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article about a self-published author of questionable notability. Many of the provided references either don't mention the subject or don't back up the claims made. Movie roles listed on IMDB are mostly background extra work. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT the page (maybe speedy delete per G4?)  The page has been previously deleted twice. Here is the description of the previous page in the 2nd nomination:
 * Article is, in its previous form, little more than a promotional vehicle for a non-notable person who has appeared in a pilot and had a number of uncredited appearances. The only information that can be somewhat reliably gleaned comes from the IMDB, and it indicates non-notability. That she is a "modern day muse" and a "a trusted authority in the field of anti-aging and self help" (from that previous version) are unverified claims. I foresee some rebuttal that may be long on text but short on references; I urge contributors here to focus on the BLP mandate of providing reliable sources.
 * There appears to be more unsourced claims made in this article, and so because the article was not substantially improved after two previous deletions, this may be a candidate for speedy deletion. I'll wait to tag the page until consensus on this proposal is reached.  If not speedy deletion, the page is a terrific failure to provide verifiability for a BLP.  Finally, that ridiculous surfing picture on the page ought to read:  Veronica ready to get deleted for the third time! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. Her roles in acting are not major and in fact mostly uncredited. Her books are self published with no indication of significant coverage or critical review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite the page and address the issues??? Is there anyway to re write or reword the article that can make it suitable for wikipedia? Also, two of the books are NOT self published and were published by others. She has been in several films, and her philantrhopy is significant as there are very few other people pursuing her kind of "self help" genre.  Also... Many great people started out as being self published - Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, it's similar to independent film where Joe Favreau started out before directing Iron Man 2 and Cowboys and Aliens. - JTHockey08 7/22
 * Reply - The fundamental issue is one of notability.  This requires coverage in independent reliable sources, and no amount of rewriting or editting of the article can address the lack of available sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply All of the sources listed are now independent. And the majority of novels referenced were externally published, and there are links to prove this.  Veronica is notable in the literature industry, and despite her limited roles, she has been in several independent films in a leading or main supporting role.  Her "limited" roles include supporting or extra roles on several prominent, A-list Hollywood films.  Her literature is unlike any other artists ever. -JTHockey08contribs) 23:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - The sources are either insignificant or not reliable. I see no real improvement in the sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Her literature is unlike any other artists ever.  Just saying her literature is really great is not really a good reason to keep this article, unless you can find third-party independent sources that describe it as such.  I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Well... there are independent third party sources praising her work - Spiritually Raw, and reviews from third party publisher websites. We are trying to get more third party sources supporting our case for notabilaity. Please give us some time.  She is an entrepenuer and helps to manage some bands.  Why is it so terrible to let her have a biography?  We will do anything to make it a "non advertisement" and we are trying hard to make the notability issue solved.  She is a writer and annst actress... there are some other less notable people on Wikipedia... -JTHockey08 — JTHockey08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well... there are independent third party sources praising her work - Spiritually Raw, and reviews from third party publisher websites.
 * Spiritually Raw is a forum, and contains user-submitted content. Because it is user submitted, we can't really confirm whether it's independent.  The publisher is also not independent as they have a financial interest in the book's sales.
 * Please give us some time.
 * Although there are no official deadlines on Wikipedia, we should delete, merge, or keep articles on topics based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now. The current article has issues, but more importantly, it has also been up for two deletion nominations already and deleted each time for pretty much the same reasons we are discussing now.  The potential for Grey to meet the notability guidelines for authors or in general is not favorable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She is an entrepenuer and helps to manage some bands. Why is it so terrible to let her have a biography?
 * It's not "terrible," it just doesn't follow the policies for notability that we try to support on Wikipedia. Also, being a certain type of person doesn't make someone notable automatically.
 * We will do anything to make it a "non advertisement" and we are trying hard to make the notability issue solved.
 * Again, there doesn't appear to be WP:POTENTIAL for this individual. However, if you find sources, please tell us about them here.  Deletion discussions like this one usually last for a week, so you don't need to rush.  I've removed my recommendation to speedily delete this page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She is a writer and annst actress...
 * She doesn't appear to fulfill WP:AUTHOR as I discussed already. As for being an actress, the current article doesn't have listed as acting in any TV shows or films.  Only that she has been present at awards ceremonies (not receiving any) and comedy / running charity events.
 * there are some other less notable people on Wikipedia...
 * Whatever else is on Wikipedia is also user-generated content and sets no precedent for this current article. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to understand why justifying an article with other articles on Wikipedia generally doesn't work in deletion discussions. <b style="color:green; font-family:Corbel;">I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not only is this clearly spam, it was written entirely by JThockey08, who I must assume is Ms. Grey or a stalker --Djohns21 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2011 (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.