Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonee Chichester

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. czar 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Simonee Chichester

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Simonee Chichester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced article with some advertorial overtones about a filmmaker, with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that her first film got some audience votes at a single film festival for an award it did not actually win, and otherwise this just lists her other work without attempting to demonstrate that any of it was notable at all. And the only references are that non-winning film's IMDb profile and the film festival's deadlinked primary source list of all the films that got some votes, with no evidence whatsoever of any actual reliable source coverage about the film. As always, the notability test for a filmmaker is not just that she and her work exist -- it requires evidence of her importance as a filmmaker, such as winning notable film awards and/or having critical attention paid to her work in real media. And furthermore, the article was first created by a user named "Myfriendsimonee", so there was a clear conflict of interest here. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the article lacks even one 3rd party, secondary reliable source providing substantial coverage, let alone the multiple ones GNG calls for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Should have been speedied. Fails WP:BIO. No effective sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. While I find mentions of her in other media and a book, they are mostly identical (the release of her documentary) and the remaining ones aren't enough to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2019 (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.