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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesca Wilfredy[edit]

Jesca Wilfredy (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)

Subject fails ANYBIO; The few sources provided don't look like enough for GNG. The result of the prior deletion discussion was draftify which was subsequently G13'd. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Africa. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, sources not currently in the article (the quality of which I am not endorsing) include:

1. https://www.mwananchi.co.tz/mw/habari/kitaifa/mitandao-ya-kijamii-yamtoa-kimaisha-3416192 (possibly promotional)
2. https://www.pulselive.co.ke/entertainment/celebrities/ex-harmonize-manager-mr-puaz-unveils-new-business-venture-talks-artiste-management/40vnkfc (Tabloid? Passing mention) CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reference above and in the article are routine coverage, PR and interviews. No single secondary has been presented to indicate WP:SIGCOV nor pass WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom and scope_creep. None of the sources count towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Merely for explaining how this previously deleted article came to be re-created, Jesca Wilfredy was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/220. The editor has told me, they thought this conferred notability if the name was on a list of "missing articles", so they did their best to find sources and write something. It has been suggested to me that these lists are created from records at Wikidata without any regard for notability guidelines. That said, I personally do not find Jesca Wilfredy to meet notability guidelines. --SVTCobra 17:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As a member of WiR, I can confirm that this explanation sounds credible. I have in fact today been making a list for a future event and it is not realistic for me to verify notability for all suggestions. Editors who create the articles should do that, but I am not certain if the advice is provided or clear. In summary: this is a very credible explanation, in my opinion, for what that is worth. I think therefore, as always, we should assume good faith. CT55555 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, and I have no doubt about the good faith of the WIR project. Perhaps a note about notability for the people who join the project? In this case, the editor who recreated the Jesca Wilfredy article was accused of COI and some suggested it was paid editing. I think it stressed them out. Cheers, SVTCobra 19:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will reflect on this and feed this back to the project. CT55555 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC

  Per the WiR discussion on this [1], all WiR redlists have exactly the suggested note at the top of the page: “This list of red links is intended to serve as a basis for creating new articles on the English Wikipedia. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify". Users generally, newbies particularly, face a wall of words when trying to understand WP. It's understandable that some will miss the note, or miss the importance of the note. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability. Formally state that I favor deletion even if it was suggested in my comment above. SVTCobra 19:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only social media trivia. No pass of GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per above Andrevan@ 00:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:51, 28 July 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.