Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy Olin

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Olin

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Notability not derived from father Ken Olin. Quis separabit? 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plainly passes the general notability guideline. A quick GNews search reveals well more than the minimum amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, stretching from (as far as I can see) 2009 to present day. There was actually an article about her published literally 13 hours ago here (although, granted, it's of the "whatever happened to..." variety :). Her failure to pass the subject-specific notability guideline for actresses is irrelevant if she passes GNG, and in any event that presumes her notability is entirely based on her career as an actress when she is also apparently a socialite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom almost no independent RS to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Random sampling of independent RS found via simple Google search. MTV.com. New York Magazine. LA Times. People Magazine. I'm curious to know how this fails GNG's simple requirement that a subject be the source of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I suppose the MTV.com source can be discounted as not independent, but the rest have no affiliation with her or the TV shows she has appeared on. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The Google search above does give a couple of pages of hits, but beginning on page 3 they are mostly tangential, non-substantive mentions of her, mostly to do with her friendship with Whitney Port. Of the rest, most are blogs, or aren't independent (e.g. MTV), or again only mention her briefly in relation to something else. Mere mentions do not rise to the criteria of significant coverage. It looks like there is a single good source, the New York Magazine item, which is an in-depth interview. This certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG, her appearance on a reality tv show, and a small role in a single other program don't meet WP:NACTOR. Normally, I'd say this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but most of these cites are from five or more years ago. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 7 August 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.