Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Braganza (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus here is that not much has changed since the previous AfD, 7 months ago. Some new sources were presented, but other commenters didn't think they were sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Braganza

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

Kingston Whig-Standard, which is one of the press releases rather than a KWS journalist writing about her, and CBC Music, which just gives her a brief blurb in a listicle. There's still not nearly enough here, either in the sourcing or the substance, to deem her notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been substantial additional press coverage which can be used to expand the article.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the above "keep" vote's assertion that there is "substantial additional press coverage which can be used to expand the article." The new references continue in the vein of the nominator's analysis: press releases and run-of-mill promotional announcements. The content added to the article that purportedly supports this (https://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=15488) is not third party, independent coverage: it is, in fact, from a press release distribution service. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More coverage found, but it all looks quite local: [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
talk) 12:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I would have thought that for CBC to list her as one of the [ten top Canadian South-Asian artists] is more than just local news.--Ipigott (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being blurbed in a listicle is not a notability criterion, no. It doesn't matter if it's "more than just local news" or not, because it's a listicle and not substantive coverage about her. If she were the primary subject of a CBC Music post specifically devoted to her, that would count for more (but still not enough all by itself if it was the only viable source) — but simply appearing in a listicle doesn't assist notability at all if the listicle itself is the best source that's actually on offer. For the record, only one other person named in that listicle actually has a Wikipedia article, and that one person has a much stronger notability claim than just existing and much better sourcing for it than just a listicle. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage has still not risen to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Local coverage counts for GNG. She's covered in the local Kingston paper, Toronto news and yes, mentioned by CBC, whic shows she's being noticed by "mainstream media." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "notice" in the local Kingston paper is a straight reprint of her own press release, not an article written by a journalist for Kingston's local paper, and being mentioned in a listicle doesn't assist notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
talk) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I've looked over the sources, and there just isn't enough independent and non-local coverage to justify a keep at this time. It looks like the page was hastily recreated after deletion following the first AfD. Maybe she'll become notable in the future, but this is just promotion as it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - I concur with Tryptofish. Maybe
WP:TOOSOON. Not enough indepth coverage now to support notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete--Not enough indep. covg.
Not now.Winged Blades^Godric 13:16, 10 December 2017 (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.