Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Rayne Oakes

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) 15:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Rayne Oakes

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

WP:SPIP WP:NOTABILITY - Entirely a puff piece/resume. I attempted to fact check the stated accomplishments and quickly realized there was no long term projects, notability, etc. Please note the edits by: 71.246.118.132, Gemin-Eye, Dblazeskater, 71.249.188.7 - I believe these to be edits by the subject of the article. PeterWesco (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - am inclined to agree. She does also seem to be a blogger for the Huffington Post (see this bio), but I'm not sure that counts for much. I think this is actually a blog but it's not clear. There seems to be a couple of non-English articles (see GoogleNews) but I can't tell if these are passing mentions or significant coverage. She seems to have received a whole bunch of coverage from various eco-blogs and the like but I'm not sure any of it contributes to meeting WP:GNG. Like this, this and this. The second one might be edging toward what we're looking for but I'm not really convinced. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, most of the 54 "sources" cited in the article aren't actually sources at all. Few (if any) give the subject "significant coverage" (mostly one-off mentions in lists of people) and others are clearly written by the subject, who is herself a "writer". Coverage of yourself is not coverage. Many, still, are duplications. If you removed all iterations of the unreliable, non-independent sources from the article you would be lucky to have one or two left. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2012 (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) 17:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure pr, for a pr based career. The sources, as might be expected all essentially all pr -based. It's time we stopped this sort of thing. I think we need an increased level of scrutiny for anyone claimed in the lede paragraph to be a social entrepreneur DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Agreed. I have been prod/afd them as I find them. In reality, this one should have been prod'd but I err'd on the side of caution and did an AFD. Clearly with the amount of relistings... there is not a lot of dispute :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very tricky article. Does have some genuine references but on blogs and IMDB site. The other references don't speak about this model so fails WP:Verify. -Wikishagnik 02:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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.