Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Massey

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. No reliable sources proving the subject's notability have been put up. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey

Laura Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see what she's done that is notable, and I can't find any reliable sources to add more information to this article. Basically unsourced biography since August 2009. Just working for Microsoft doesn't meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Laura is a public figure at Microsoft as a frequent co-host of a widely-listened, influential gaming podcast. White 720 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point to a source that backs this statement up? We need to prove
  (LiberalFascist) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sure. Here's a list of shows in which she's participated. Here's an article that includes a mention of her in that capacity. White 720 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying she didn't do the show, just that she is not notable enough for a WP article. The news article is a passing mention, which does not meet the "significant coverage" criteria of
      (LiberalFascist) 13:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Same argument. You still have not provided reliable sources as to establish notability and warrant inclusion. Having a podcast with no secondary coverage does not establish notability.—  
      talk  16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Delete - no sources, no indication of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep - The search, Laura Massey+xbox gets
  WP:RS. I have a feeling that in the gaming community, she would be fairly notable. --Morenooso (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question - I'm not sure I understand - no
  WP:RS but a !keep? What is the rationale? Thanks. GregJackP (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, I do believe I have the same question, given you yourself quoted ghits suitability. Perhaps the subject is notable, but there are still no sources to support this.—  
  talk  16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Cannot find any sources to back up my intention to keep this. [1] seems to be the only reliable, notable source, but still does not establish the subject's notability. To above comments: Google hits aren't sources or indication of notability; podcast is primary source and not an indication of notability; being at Microsoft is not an indication of notability; being known in video game industry is not an indication of notability. </broken_record> —  
  talk  00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - The
  usage of a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. --Morenooso (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Due to a lack of consensus and an over-reliance on Google search results during this "discussion," I move to close this deletion discussion with no action taken. White 720 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which just happens to be "Keep" by default. —  
    talk  16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yup. White 720 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2010 (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.