Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irène Major (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. A little more discussion in this AFD than the previous one, but there is still not a rough consensus here. This close permitts speedy renomination, if requested. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irène Major

Irène Major (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)

Renominating as last nomination did not get any independent views. Aside from the on-going and long-standing COI issues this article has had (and a number of related ones that have since been deleted), there is nothing this person has done of notability, but a number of sub-GNG projects, the sum of which do not IMO exceed the GNG threshold. For example, the crowning glory of their music career was to reach the top 28 in one year's X Factor, which is considerably below what would qualify someone for an article. Rayman60 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:GNG states that, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Furthermore, it states that significant coverage means it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The subject clearly meets this threshold based on the articles cited and many others available. It doesn't matter if "there is nothing this person has done of notability" (which may or may not be true) so long as she has received significant coverage. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's some subjectivity in applying some of the terms so I would like to clarify why I think this subject falls considerably short of general notability. She was supposedly a well-known model. There isn't a single reference for this. She was supposedly an actress with a number of roles. Zero entries on imdb here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7789512 The pop career peaked with reaching the final 28 of a pop reality show (and being much derided in the process). There are winners of the Apprentice (who have received significant coverage) who still don't have their own profile page. The only coverage there has been has been very low-level articles in publications like the Sun and Daily Mail about beauty tips, being the wife of someone obscenely rich, and for her use and defence of skin-whitening products. There's absolutely nothing to these articles, it's just someone who has an agent and agrees to speak to the newspapers on certain topics. In the same sense, you could say Noelie Goforth, who appeared on one of the same shows and on Wife Swap, and in the same accompanying article, and has 'significant coverage' elsewhere (Telegraph) for suing Gordon Ramsey for serving her cling film. Technically this is significant coverage from an independent reliable source, but it's not noteworthy. Similarly, Wayne Lineker (as an example from the top of my head) has been featured in many major newspapers at various times for various things and was even a guest star on TOWIE, but again the sum of all these tiny things (legal troubles, famous brother, etc) are not enough to warrant an article, hence no article. Many reality stars get bikini snaps pasted all over the Daily Mail and don't have their own page (as an example, Lydia Bright has 2,792 results on the Daily Mail search page, but doesn't have an article, because the articles are of such insignificance that they do not justify a wiki profile page. How can one person have 2,792 articles on one publication and not be considered significant coverage whereas this person has 7 articles from national press and a couple from local and pass notability/GNG?). So merely being mentioned in the news (especially when it's volunteering yourself for a puff-piece) does not to me come anywhere near meeting the criteria for 'significant coverage.' I really cannot see how this subject gets anywhere near to meeting any of the general specifications, and absolutely fails at any of the specific ones, which considering they're portrayed as a superstar philanthropist, model, actor, singer, presenter etc, you'd think they'd absolutely nail. Rayman60 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this is actually solid enough for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:ENTERTAINER isn't a reason for deletion per se. If the subject meets WP:GNG, or any other set of guidelines for inclusion, then it should be kept. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 12:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It makes me sad that a user is again pushing the Irene Major page for possible deletion. Irene Major is an entertainment personality that I follow on social media, TV and in press. She is insightful on fashion, deals with difficult issues in TV interviews and also has fun songs and blogs. Also, she is an African female and it is good to see her on Wikipedia. I hope that in time there will be more and more articles on inspiring and impactful contemporary black women on Wikipedia not less. --LucyP007 (talk) 12:58, 03 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her gender and race have absolutely nothing to do with anything, and it's quite offensive to insinuate any link or to even raise this issue. Personal feelings about someone you admire are irrelevant in judging notability, as are insights into fashion and fun songs. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage does not rise to the level to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Rayman60's assessment in his comment above is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 24 March 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.