Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Shortall

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. ✗plicit 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Shortall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability requirements under WP:NBASIC as none of the sources have significant coverage of the individual and a Google search did not yield any other sources to satisfy the reqs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Sources are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.

Source eval table:

Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth are added to the article.  // Timothy :: talk  00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' Reads like somebody doing their job. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:09, 30 March 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.