Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arielle Scarcella

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. czar ⨹ 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle Scarcella (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)

WP:BLP of an Internet personality, relying entirely on primary and/or unreliable (blog) sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage. For added bonus, this shades significantly into advertising territory, particularly when you get to the "life coaching" section: "Currently, she offers one hour sessions via Skype at $100 USD and a bulk option for five sessions at $400 USD.", followed by (primary sourced, of course) client testimonials. I'm willing to grant that she might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article — but that's not what this article is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with your point on the shade into advertisement and it was a serious misjudgment on my part. The "Life coaching" portion has been entirely removed as of now. I will be sure to incorporate more reliable and non primary sources as well. --Kerrfluffle (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article has reliable source material and it's content is notable enough to be kept. From what I've researched, she seems to be very mainstream within the online LGBT community.Keep--Magicjamess (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source material? It's sourced almost entirely to primary sources, blogs and YouTube videos — there's only one citation in the entire article that counts as a reliable source at all (#7), and that's not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources to the article. Sorry about the primary sources, going by school essays I thought those were the best to use and Wikipedia is very new to me. Please let me know what else can and should be done or if this article isn't notable enough to continue. However, I believe that this individual is notable enough to deserve an article and there are now more secondary sources to support it. Keep--Kerrfluffle (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything in the article as of right now is still a primary source (YouTube videos and non-notable blogs don't count.) There's only one acceptable reliable source being cited here (Huffington Post), and one source isn't enough to get a person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sourced almost completely from promotional material. No real evidence of notability.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could not find any reliable sources to ascertain notability. Reads like a press release. - NQ (talk) 10:42, 5 December 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.