Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.R. Threston

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 snowball delete. I'm going to be bold (for me, at least) and shut this down after less than a day of discussion, since some of the comments are, I think, unnecessarily speculative regarding the motivations behind the creation of this BLP. All of the participants other than the now-blocked SPAs agree that the article's content, including the sourcing, fails to establish the notability of the subject, and I don't foresee that consensus changing if the AfD continues. Any admin who disagrees is welcome to undo my closure, and anyone else is welcome to raise the matter at DRV. Deor (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Threston

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

Looking over this article I don't see any sources that provide the indepth, secondary source coverage that would be required to meet general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional nonsense. I didn't know you could hire a PR firm to place a biography on Imdb. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered evidently false IMDb entries before. There are good reasons why we do not regard it as a WP:RS. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the one source not the whole thing! She certainly didn't have PR for being a UN Social Ambassador or attending a UN Social Media Summit. She is a founding member of a professional organization and this is nothing but pure spite with someone with nothing better to do than troll Wikipedia all day! --WJRockford (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of her alleged claims to fame is being a National Women's Museum Honoree in 2013. Here is a description of how this comes about "The National Women's History Museum enables you to remember and thank the women who have helped to shape your life. It might be your mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, teacher, neighbor, or friend. Upon receipt of your donation and the name(s) of those you are honoring, their name(s) will be listed here in the Roll of Honor and Remembrance." That does not sound like a notable thing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "UN" link looks to be a self-generated portrait that is part of the campaign itself. Nothing here comes close to being a third-party source covering Threston. The closest is the Harris Charitable Trust honor, but that is a one-line description, that does not make her sound like she would fit our notability requirements at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - shameless press-agentry and fluff calculated to make a socialite look imporant. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & mainly Orange Mike - I'm getting the sense some firm has simply attempted to make a non important person "important" .... Anyway Delete as serves no purpose here other than to promote. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This continues to show absolute ignorance on your part. There is NOTHING self generated by the UN link but I guess you're so much smarter right? And I am NOT a press agent!! --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being smarter has nothing to do with this, and I couldn't care less if you were an astronaut or a zookeeper... She's not notable end of. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whom could an email be forwarded to show PROOF she was an invited Official Delegate to the U.N.'s first "Media 4 Social Impact Summit", held at the United Nations in NYC on April 11, 2014? --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added with contact information regarding her invite to the UN Summit. And, whom do I forward a letter head to from Collective Changes, a women's empowerment program that works in conjunction with the United Nations stating that she IS a Global Ambassador on their behalf? And, if she wasn't working as a Social Media Ambassador for Giving Tuesday then why is it all over her Facebook page and her Twitter account from December, 2013? And tracing an email is as simple as entering the heading, anyone can do it, and, you'll know immediately where the email was generated. --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"tracing an email is as simple as entering the heading", email especially, but all digital information generally can be spoofed, this is a terrible argument. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope you realize this is a real person and since this is a publicly seen forum, you are absolutely creating a case of defamation of character since the proof of sources and citations can and will be presented in court if necessary and you are on the borderline of slander/libel. --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of the significant in-depth coverage in third-party published reliable sources required to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was just wondering - if that person T.R. Threston exists and is notable, how come we do not have her full name in the title? Its not as if shes T.S. Elliott or something ... as for her Twitter and Facebook account, thats not really a reliable source. There is a reason why people should not create their own Wikipedia articles and other people who do it should not base it on those people's information ... I don't say people are always dishonest about themselves, but it happens too often, therefore information originating from people affected by the articles are not our first choice to back up an article. (To use friendly words.) If she was real, I don't see her relevance that justify an article on her. Also announcing to publish a fiction novel based on her allegedly family, whilst articles on each of her family members pop up at the same time .... come on ... thats just too much of a coincidence. I strongly suspect an attempt of viral marketing here. OR she isn't real, and in that case she should not have her own article anyway. LagondaDK (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of Wikipedia-level notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little info that is our there is thin at best and the WP:SECONDARY sources are thinner. There is nothing that says that, should they become notable down the road, that a new article can't be created. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not doubt that Threston is real. She seems to have been recognized by some organization in New York for being a philanthropist. However being a local level philanthropist does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant in-depth coverage in third-party published reliable sources to meet inclusion guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight WP:PROMO. Appears to be a paid editing piece at best. John from Idegon (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable or not, this promotional article is not what we want to have. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2014 (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.