Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Chin

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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Chin

[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 sports journalist, the only source available in the article is clearly unreliable, and the only sources I could find from a search were either also unreliable or primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Basketball, and Massachusetts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Combined with the primary sources (and excluding the one currently on the page), there is enough here to merit inclusion.--User:Namiba 01:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
deleteI just went to google to look for more references and expand article. First page showed things Twitter and Facebook as well as link to media outlet she is affiliated with that linked to two articles she wrote. IMHO, limited if any independent verifiable sources. The one that is listed strikes me as something from a PR firm. BostonMensa (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources brought up by User:Namiba. This is enough for a pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 16:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several reliable sources are available. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources found by User:Namiba. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the sources I believe she fails WP:GNG due to lack of multiple significant coverage from multiple publications. The travelandwritetoday.com source is a blog and does not go towards passing WP:GNG per WP:BLOGS. The Colorado.edu source is from her school and thus a WP:PRIMARY source. The three sources from Boston.com and considered to be a single source per WP:N. The last one is from a student-run news source at the Dana Hall School, which is for ages 10-17/18 if I understand it correctly which in my opinion is not a significant source. Alvaldi (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep Found a few other sources that go towards GNG, from Telegram & Gazette, the Boston Globe and USA Today. This one from the Globe could also be significant but I can't access it. Alvaldi (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's wide coverage in third-party sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: there is enough significant coverage to justify and article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:18, 16 February 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.