Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narda E. Alcorn (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 delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narda E. Alcorn

[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)

per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have asked numerous times to have this page removed. The person in question, Narda E. Alcorn, my wife of 21+ years, has asked for my help in removing the page. Here is a link to the text: https://www.flickr.com/gp/shelli/in6eYp

I have deleted it twice, but people unbeknownst to Narda or me keep putting it back up. It's really none of their business, and if the person wants it removed, it should be removed.

Thank you, Shelli

Delete: The current issue with this page is that the subject has sought help to delete the page because of harrassment and attendant safety concerns. It seems a reasonable candidate for Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects. The previous AfD (over a year ago) was for concerns of non-notability and was closed as no consensus. _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Theatre. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out at the end of the previous AFD discussion that the major source of information in the article was a regurgitated press release, which indeed appears to be the case. That's a pretty poor source for anything, biography or otherwise. But it seems to be the only thing available. There are quotations by this person. There are also mentions in credits, and in other press releases or photograph captions. But there's nothing that I personally would hang a biography from. Criteria that are not dependent from provenances and depths of sources for writing an article, that yet manage to qualify this for an article, are clearly faulty; because they've clearly led into the land of uncritically using press releases to make an article that otherwise could not have been made at all. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G's well reasoned explanation, and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not found sufficient support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and agree about the warmed-up press release. There is also an award bio that appears to be self-written. I think a good example of how sources do not support WP:CREATIVE is this 2021 Playbill roundup of reviews for a production she stage-managed. We're not provided a basis to assert she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work when her role is not described as such or even mentioned in the reviews. It also appears to be WP:TOOSOON for her to be regarded as an important figure or [...] widely cited by peers or successors or known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, UncleG and ScottishFinnishRadish: WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Cabrils (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt?) per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline/poor sourcing, and the subject's request should make this an easy decision. I'd argue borderline on a BLP should be a no consensus delete even, but that's not for this discussion. Star Mississippi 17:50, 13 March 2022 (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.