Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Falconer

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. This AfD has been relisted three times. It has had few contributors to the discussion. Of those !voting, three - including the nominator - are in favour of delete due to lack of significant reliable sources, with only one keep (from Piecesofuk, because they added sources). With three to one in favour of delete, numerically that would favour a delete. Also, lack of interest in a delete discussion in itself favours a delete on the principle of "no objection". On the other hand, the article was nominated for deletion when it was in this state: [1], when it had only two sources, and one of those was IMDB, which is generally considered to be an unreliable source, but it has been built on during the AfD discussion, and more sources added. However, two of the deletes came after the sources were added, and commented that the sources were not adequate - for example that the BBC source was an interview, and that coverage of her art career (her assumed notability) was sparse. Having looked at the BBC interview, I agree. The interview is about the town - she is used as a commentator on the town as a resident there. And other mentions, such as in the Irish Independent and Evening Herald, are "sparse" in that they mention her only in passing, in a trivial rather than the detailed or significant manner required of WP:GNG. However, The Impartial Reporter, a reliable source, does provide two detailed articles on her. And here's the rub. Certainly, they do not provide the information required of either WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST as pointed out by the nominator and user Possibly, when !voting delete, but they do provide some detailed coverage of her, as Possibly says, a "public personality". The downside of those sources is that they are local, which brings us back to the point made in the nomination that "The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability". That point has not been challenged, and has been implicitly supported by those commenting. It's also worth noting that two of those !voting to delete have been active in editing the article to provide sources, yet concluded after doing their research that there was not enough notability evidence for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]