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. Nomination withdrawn / SNOW. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Delvey (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)

Contested PROD. Only sources suitable for use in article is a single news article about a routine crime in a single local newspaper. All other sources available are primary documents (court filings and the like) or unreliable or similarly trivial to the one currently there as of this nomination. --Jayron32 14:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There were actually a number of reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject in previous versions of the article, for example:
  • Pressler, Jessica (2018-05-28). "How an Aspiring 'It' Girl Tricked New York's Party People — and Its Banks". Cut. Wasserstein & Co. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
  • Birnbaum, Debra; Otterson, Joe (2018-06-08). "Shonda Rhimes Sets Anna Delvey Series as First Netflix Project". Variety. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved 2018-06-15.
  • Ryan, Lisa (2018-07-23). "Anna Delvey May Have Scammed the Fyre Festival Founder". Cut. Wasserstein & Co. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  • Williams, Rachel DeLoache (2018-04-13). "'She Paid for Everything': How a Fake Heiress Made My $62,000 Disappear". Vanity Fair. Advance Publications. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
  • "Meet Neff Davis, Anna Delvey's Only Friend In New York". PAPER. 13 June 2018. Retrieved 2018-09-21.

I have not yet made up my mind whether they are sufficient to establish notability under WP:PERP or WP:BASIC, although I'm leaning keep at this point. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for finding those. I'll start reviewing them presently. --Jayron32 17:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't, they were in a previous version of the page. Regards SoWhy 17:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdraw nom, with the caveat that some of these sources should be used to expand the article. The Cut sources aren't really appropriate; they are mostly second-hand gossip columns (one even is just a synopsis of someone else's gossip column), but there's substantial biography articles in both Vanity Fair and Variety in there which could be used to expand the article. It would be useful to use articles like that to beef this up from what is there currently. --Jayron32 18:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has been chopped around extensively, but appears to have at one time been a well-enough sourced account of someone who achieved a measure of notoriety and an interesting piece of social history. Covered by MSM and all... IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have to agree with Alexandermcnabb. Sources are available. When kept this article needs a rewrite.BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep I saw those Vanity Fair and Variety articles when I blanket deleted the body. I felt there likely may be more than meets the eye, but it was too big of a mess and too many BLP vios to wait and try to separate everything beforehand. Far easier to dump it through a strainer and collect what remains. The Cut is definitely not RS. I would say per BLP to "keep" only if either 1.) notability can be demonstrated --independent of the allegations, or 2.) if the allegations are the only source or notoriety, then there should at least be a conviction reported in secondary sources (not court documents) per BLPCRIME. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zaereth: Why is Cut not a RS? It's part of New York, is it not? Regards SoWhy 19:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an op/ed piece, filled with editorializations and opinions of the author, and written in a novelesque format rather than journalistic. Not everything printed by a newspaper or magazine is reliable even if the actual news stories and articles they print are. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Alleged crime has attracted national attention and is soon to be the basis of a Netflix miniseries. Adequate coverage in reliable sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per reasons given above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2018 (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.