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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Puente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find evidence of her meeting WP:NCREATIVE. Online searches come up with mostly her social media profiles and biographies on the various news stations she worked at. Being the daughter of the late Tito Puente does not add notability per WP:NOTINHERITED and while the article says she won an Emmy, I cannot find a source for that. Even if she did, it is most likely a local Emmy, which many local journalists and anchormen have won, not a national won which would merit an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2023 (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/2023 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This coverage in Forbes [1] and this magazine [2]. Not the best, but it's coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is part of an essay titled: "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". I'd consider useful for countering arguments, but not for starting them, as nobody has claimed she is notable on the basis of inheritance. WP:GNG is the relevant policy. I think she meets it, due to the significant coverage, in which she has been described in detail, as a celebrity, several times. I'd normally list the sources, but you can see them easily by looking at the article, now that I've updated it (it had only 2 about an hour ago, but are many more now). CT55555(talk) 20:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a few sources, and it looks like plenty to me.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 22:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Not sure if it has enough significant sources. 47.23.10.234 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a common misconception that we should discount sources that mention a person's famous relatives. In actual fact, notability very often is inherited, since children of celebrities are more likely to attract significant coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2023 (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.