Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Syme

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. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Syme (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)

The subject herself actually contacted me, saying there are apparently inaccuracies here, but with examining this, my searches have found nothing better at all aside from her own articles, no reviews or anything else to suggest notability; searches were at News, browsers and Highbeam which were the only ones that actually gave links. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Appears to fail WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage. Nothing that really seems to establish why she would be notable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG - references are not substantial or indepedant of the subject Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She's associated with various notable publications, but I don't see any particular reason to think of herself as individually notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per long-standing policy in edge cases like these. (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) shoy (reactions) 15:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she never asked this to be deleted, she simply mentioned these mistakes and also offered to fix them herself. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but it still fails GNG. shoy (reactions) 18:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Syme is a very well-known journalist. The page may have been created or edited by people who don't check their facts, We deal with that the usual way; it happens to a lot of articles. Symes made her name writing for New_York_Post#Page_Six The celebrity gossip page, The must-read page for power New York. She puts herself into the story [1], she gets written about [2], she becomes the story [[3]] I'll bring more sources, but she is one of the hot journalists of the moment. I am having difficulty finding an argument for deleting this. What it need is improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ″Keep per E.M.Gregory. Article needs improvement but not deletion. There's a difference. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Post-modern profile here: [4] on Amy Poehler's Smart Girls.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per references provided by E.M.Gregory. Improvement over deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I consider E.M.Gregory's sources to show that she's very good at self-promotion. I don't regard that as a reason to keep as a notable self-promotor, but rather to delete as an attempted addition to her string of advertisements for herself. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per montanabw. Article needs expansion and improved references, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. GNG requires reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. We don't compromise on that. Here are the sources provided by E.M.Gregory

• psmag.com Not an independent sources as the subject has written it herself.
• Gawker 1 Trivial mention as she attended an afterparty
• Gawker 2 "Daily Beast Editor Sends 'World's Worst Email'" A user submitted tip which talks about how Syme "sent the "world's worst email" in an attempt to get free research for an article she's writing". I'm not sure if I would consider this user-submitted tip for notability. This is also a BLP violation.
• Medium.com This is a medium.com blog written by her. Not independent.
• amysmartgirls.com This is borderline/disguised promotion of a non-notable Twitter book club, but at least it is a secondary source.

I looked at the article and found that the subjects's own works have been used as references. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (independent of the subject) does not exist. I am willing to change my stance if someone can come up with such sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2016 (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.