Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Ousley

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. Sadads (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Ousley

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Dead refs. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a lot of good articles about her in Newspapers.com and added them to the article. She is the pioneer of the airbrush makeup kit and there's enough info about her and her work for her to pass GNG. Pinging Scope creep to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She does seem to be the commercial pioneer of airbrush makeup, about 30+ years ago. It was an old technique, but used sparsly in the cinema. As a bit part actor she is not notable. There is also a fair number of GBook refs, in name only. scope_creep (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as extra reliable sources references have been added so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 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.