Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Molina

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Molina

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

Doesn't indicate meaningful notability. All of the sources were written by the subject and most of them don't even cover the subject. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found sources for national awards, one of which was written up by Reuters. Fleshed out article and wikified it some. Needs more work but notability seems clear. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Given the findings from user AuthorAuthor, I'm changing my vote to weak keep. Dominique does appear to have some notability in the tax planning space. The original deletion nomination stated that all of the sources were written by the subject. This is simply not true. CitizenNeutral (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only new sourcing about Molina is #6 and #7, which are awards. The sources only mention Molina in passing and I don't think they meet the standards for GNG. The other sources now in the article are instances of CNN, et al. publishing Molina's work, but not covering Molina. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times [1] and Chicago Tribune [2] pieces appear to have been written by Molina: one is prefaced by a little biography of her, and the other names her on the byline —rybec 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Chicago Tribune article has no byline but the author intro makes it clear that the article is by Molina. And in any case, it isn't about Molina. The NY Times article is also written by Molina and isn't about her tax work either. The rest of the sourcing is just articles quoting Molina in articles about tax. What is missing is significant coverage about Molina. It's not in the article, nor was I able to find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pre lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a second CNN Money interview of the subject and included it, plus a nomination for a national award (National Association of Women Business Owners), and news coverage for appearances on TV shows in St. Louis, New Orleans and San Diego during tax season. She also sits on a university board of directors. I added those to the page and copyedited. There appears to be significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The sources, as CitizenNeutral pointed out, were not written by the subject. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chicago Tribune and NY Times noted above are written by Molina. I cannot find a second CNN money interview in the references you added. Of the references that you did add, none of them establish notability. Her socialmediatoday profile is a self-published source. This item just quotes her. Being brought in to talk about taxes like this, this and this don't establish notability. Nor do press releases about awards. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the missing CNN Money citation. I found a third CNN Money article in which Molina was quoted, which I also added. I also found a CBS Los Angeles article and TV footage where they called Molina the "Dear Abby of Finances," interviewed her for 5 minutes and mentioned her book. Quotes from a variety of news outlets and multi TV appearances add up to substantial coverage and establish notability, IMHO. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see anything of substance there to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Failure to establish notability, as documented amply above Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (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.