Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadja Sayej

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Sayej

[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, with some advertorial undertones, about a journalist and celebrity interviewer who is not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. Far too many of the references here are primary sources which do not support notability at all, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and YouTube video clips of her doing her job -- and the ones that are reliable sources aren't about her in the sense required to get her over WP:GNG, but (a) glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other things, (b) feature her talking about herself in Q&A format, or (c) tangentially verify a stray fact while failing to mention Nadja Sayej at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source a journalist as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Theres not even one good solid RS to build an article on, only filler/support stuff. And so many many examples of the subjects own work being used to reference things it feels like refspam. Curdle (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nom notableEmily Khine (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 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.