Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Saphra

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. Additional sources have been produced since nomination and I am now seeing a 'keep' consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Saphra

Jacqueline Saphra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

reliable sources: the notability test for writers is not the things the article says, but the depth and quality of the referencing that the article uses to support the things it says. But the only references here are her self-written biographical blurbs on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and events, not reliable or independent or notability-supporting media coverage. None of these sources cut it as evidence of notability, and the article claims nothing about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to cut it as evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing some good coverage in GNews:
It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR, but it is enough for GNG.
talk) 05:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
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.