Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Letter

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Letter

Megan Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's reception were filled with unreliable sources. Zero

🔔) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
Bloomberg Yes Yes Yes Goes on about how she made money and about her Roblox career Yes
Buisness of buisness No Interview ? ~ No
Forbes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wonder works studio No No No Career listing site No
Npr Yes Yes No Talks about Roblox not just Megan herself No
Cnbc No Interview Yes Yes No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Weak delete. CNBC is an interview, the Forbes is a contributor piece. Bloomberg is solid, but it's about all there is for sourcing. One more and we'd be at notability I think Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Besides the articles already mentioned, I found [[1]] and [[2]]. Not convinced that this one passes GNG right now. Let'srun (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and discussion above. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Evaluating the sources, I think this is still borderline for GNG. I will lean keep on the basis of
    WP:BASIC which explicitly notes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The book is a solid source, so combining the non-interview portions of Bloomberg and NPR, I think we have BASIC. —siroχo 03:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:BASIC, as pointed out by Cunard's above sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2023 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.