Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoniaxFyza

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. This is a borderline call between no consensus and delete, but I am ultimately swayed by the final comment in the discussion. Courcelles (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SoniaxFyza

[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)

These women do not meet any WiKipedia notability criteria, including

WP:SIGCOV. The page was initially referenced only with social media posts of a gossipy nature. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added more reliable sources, and now there are multiple reliable sources on the page. I also think that since they have million(s) of followers, they would be prominent enough to have a page. Kind regards. Dwasirkaram (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable streamers, only having coverage for saying things they perhaps shouldn't have. Having millions of subs isn't notable, as the numbers aren't audited and can be bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I make some improvements, in case it influences you. CT55555(talk) 01:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of no interest. Athel cb (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:IDONTLIKEIT CT55555(talk) 01:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per
WP:NBASIC. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Article was in a bad state until I improved it a few minutes ago. They pass
WP:BASIC due to the significant coverage at South China Morning Post plus the other sources in the article, including Cosmopolitan. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3162564/rise-kim-k-clones-10-celebrities-who-are-kardashian I would ask those who already voted to search for both women by their real names, as well as the social media handle. CT55555(talk) 01:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
None of the references you've added get over the lack of notability. Athel cb (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still wouldn't call those extensive sources, the South China Morning Post is a photo with a small caption. More of a celebrity gossip article, it actually hinders notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References provided are interviews, photo gallery, celebrity news. Some sources are unreliable (no consensus according to the list). M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am finding significant coverage in reliable sources eg yahoonews and insider Mujinga (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources seem ok, but they only cover her from one point of view, saying things she shouldn't have. We need more neutral coverage to balance out the article. I'm on the fence about deletion at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dwasirkaram (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV: the Refinery29 article is an interview so it's not independent on the subject; the SCMP offers little original analysis and ends up quoting the Refinery29; the Cosmopolitan article consists of captioned images of the subject. Plenty lot of tabloid fodder, but no serious coverage.-
KH-1 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.