Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sòrcha Carr

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sòrcha Carr

[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)

Being at demos, and even having a caption mention you is not notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxterria: There's not reason to delete it, and it has being sourced. She has being seen multiple times online and appeared in my own social media feed several times in New Zealand. She's obviously got some traction in the country. Foxterria (talk) 1:12pm, 9 October 2019 (NZT) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

wp:n, it is not enough to have been seen, she has to have been written about in her own right (by RS).Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read the sources, she has being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxterria (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I am not even sure two of them mention her by name. The other two only mention here in a photo capitation, that is not enough to pass

wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
WP:SIGCOV is not demonstrated. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Guliolopez. (If kept, then needs much better sourcing and probably renaming. If she's Irish-born, then presumably her name is actually just Sorcha, or possibly Sórcha (the
síneadh fada on the "o" like a French accent aegu, not an accent grave). The grave accent does not appear in Irish orthography. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The source all say Sorcha, so this article is riddled with OR from (literally) the start. Its hard to not assume there is COI here, and promotionalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact is there anything in the article that is actually sourced and verified?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, if there was COI involvement, you'd have to assume they know how to spell their friend's name... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, assuming that, and not assuming its a different person, or there is not COI and they have just seen them on FB or...but that is the problem with assumption, Hence why I have asked them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Instagram account uses the grave accent. Haven't checked if it really belongs to this person. Daß Wölf 19:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed her unsourced date of birth from the article. PamD 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability: the fact that creator of article added an unsourced date of birth suggests either
WP:OR. PamD 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

They have still not responded to my question about COI, so I am now going with that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing whatsoever that indicates notability. Schwede 66 04:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Dubious spelling and unsourced DOB are red flags, and any mention in sources is passing. Extinction Rebellion has many members, so does not impact.SeoR (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails
WP:GNG . Spleodrach (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this article is an extreme example of rushes to show notability that WIkipedia should avoid. It is a key reason I constantly say we need to force all new articles through the article creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 14 October 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.