Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantelle Ducharme

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) 22:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Ducharme

[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)

WP:BLP of a television host, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for television hosts. As always, she isn't automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she has a job -- but the only notability claim being made here is that she exists, not that she earned any of the distinctions (e.g. awards) that would make her existence encyclopedic, and the only referencing present at all is the self-published websites of her own employers rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about her in media independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I added a couple of independent references. Nfitz (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than just a smalltown hyperlocal and a minor specialty magazine to get a person over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to be notable for any specific reason. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes two": GNG tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the number of footnotes per se. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary concern seemed to be referencing. The Portage La Prairie newspaper is probably good for one GNG reference, despite the locality of it. I did a deeper dive for more material ... but it's like she vanished off the face of the earth in 2012. I'm struggling to find another good reference, so I'm going to withdraw the keep. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's very insightful analysis of the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2020 (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.