Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pippa Taylor

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Taylor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet

WP:BASIC as not having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Very poorly sourced - citations are Twitter, single sentence name drops, a dead citation to her employer titled "WATCH:Pippa And Toby Took Their Relationship To The Next Level..." and two primary citations to Basingstoke Council regarding her mother's role as a councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor article, padded out with unnecessary detail (an entire paragraph on the subject's mum being a local councillor is particularly filler-like). I'm not sure
WP:AUTHOR - just quiz books. News coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of her relationship to Toby Tarrant (who is also questionably notable). There seems to have previously been a presumption that anyone who appears on or works in radio is automatically notable, but this is no longer the case, radio presenters or producers even at a national level need to meet GNG and this individual appears non-notable in the specific context of that Wikipedia guideline, has not made a significant contribution to the field and is just another workaday radio producer. Flip Format (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree with most of your comments, but to be clear I did conduct a search prior to nomination. I found tabloid celebrity stories such as this. Her quiz book received virtually no coverage, certainly nothing to even consider per
WP:NAUTHOR. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Tabloids don't contribute to
WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No evidence of
WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2024 (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.