Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Linden (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Linden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:JOURNALIST. Recreation of a deleted article. There are many references presented, but not one of them provides significant coverage of the subject. Instead, the sources are a mix of passing mentions and articles written by the subject herself. Pburka (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed. mark for deletion. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject is notable, enough sources for notability, the person is a writer for many notable major publications and a professional journalist and music critic and was a regular on a VH1 television series, full disclosure, I am the editor who created this article. Maybe not the most notable journalist but a journalist who has had a career writing for The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Sentinel-Sun, Vibe, Al Jazeera America, and others, this person, in my opinion, is more than notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources confirms notability. There are name-checks, and non-independent sources (places she works for), plus articles she has written, but none ABOUT her by an independent source. LaMona (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is cobbled together out of trivial mentions. Doing your job doesn't make you notable. Having articles written about you makes you notable. There is not significant coverage in reliable sources for this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I waited until commenting but I simply believe there's simply not enough for a solidly better article here yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2015 (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.