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. Discounting a myriad of contributions which have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, a consensus exists to delete. Beccaynr's contribution is the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Woodrow[edit]

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

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

Lack of significant mentions in the independent sourcing provided, google doesn't turn up much. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's got an entire article in Forbes and Business Insider, as cited. I'm not sure I understand why this is being questioned for notability... Oaktree b (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Agree. Unlimited-Possibilities (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The Forbes article is not a reliable source; see WP:FORBESCON. The reliability of WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is mixed, and [1] is a low-content article sourced primarily to the subject. The other sources similarly lack in-depth coverage or are unreliable. Jfire (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ (duplicate !vote-as noted below) In reply to the mention about Forbes. The Forbes writer is a senior contributor with dozens of articles written, spanning over several years, not a random contributor. Unlimited-Possibilities (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Contributors", regardless of whether they are "senior" or not, is exactly what the consensus at WP:FORBESCON is referring to. Articles on Forbes that are considered reliable (WP:FORBES) are bylined by "Forbes Staff", such as [2]. Jfire (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Unlimited-Possibilities (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable writer. CT55555(talk) 09:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding my comments based on the critique of it below to say that while I recognise METRO as being somewhat tabloid, and I would be reluctant to rely on it for verifiability of controversial content, I think the article it published, combined with the others, does demonstrate notability. CT55555(talk) 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She dominates Google search for her name. All of the articles are written about her and her website. 72.199.229.24 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Dominates Google search for her name" is not a policy-based rationale for keeping the article. She may have been successful at SEO, but if reliable independent sources have not written about her in depth, the criteria for notability are not met. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - As noted above, the WP:FORBESCON is considered generally unreliable and should never be used for third-party claims about living persons, so it does not support notability. WP:METRO has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids and the source in the article is based on an interview, so is neither reliable nor independent support for notability. If we consider the Insider source to be focused on culture per WP:RS/P, it still is a collection of images supplied by the subject and her quotes, with what appears to be about five sentences of a biographical overview, some of which is later clarified in the source to be based on what she says. The 2012 NatGeo is a brief mention of her blog, "Check out this list to find out where to grab a bold bite in San Antonio" but seems puffed up in the article as "featured." The Sony website source appears to be an advertisement, and at the very least is a nonindependent source promoting its own product. The brief coverage in Lonely Planet source is based on her blog post and her images, without secondary commentary to help support notability. Online searches find low-quality spam sites and her social media sites, but no significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Due to the promotional nature of the available coverage, WP:PROMO is another basis for deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak keep: It's a stub at the moment and it could be stated as such with the hope that it is improved upon. JRed176 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

@Beccaynr I'm not concerned about the length, but about sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I dream of horses, and also think WP:PROMO supports deletion. I also find 'seems notable', 'Google hits' and 'crystal ball' justifications insufficient to support this article due to the sources available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Beccaynr.-KH-1 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Beccaynr. Wikipedia is not a resume or venue for pseudo biographies. Travel bloggers make money from advertising. The more exposure they get the more money they make, and the more perks they receive. It is one thing to have a source that requires payment, but something else when a person has to provide an email (National Geographic) and accept receiving advertisements, to read a source. The subject is shy of minimum notability. While some articles can pass with borderline notability a BLP is held to a higher degree concerning sources. Also, The double !vote is from a SPA, with five edits, and all of them are on this subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 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.