Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Neal

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. I can provide a draft if anyone wants to draftify this article for further expansion if/when her book comes out. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Neal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be converted to stub. Passes WP:Notability 201.13.76.212 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Profile is notable and ascertains Wikipedia:NPRODUCER. Additional citations flag can help in finding and citing more sources in article.

144.168.11.31 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to align with Wikipedia criteria, with indications of notability within their field. While the article could benefit from further citations to strengthen its reliability, deletion may be premature. Applying an 'additional citations needed' tag would encourage improvement and enhance the article's quality without losing potentially valuable information.

94.20.88.143 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has now been blocked as part of a UPE sock farm duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments of the nominator and believe this article should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The LA Times article is the strongest source here. Most of the others are brief mentions or possibly not independent. This might turn into a "keep" if her book (not yet out) gets significant reviews. It's a shame about the creator - draftify would otherwise make sense. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2024 (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.