Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Parks

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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Parks

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE for a journalist. could not find significant coverage [1]. there's an Amy Parks elementary school in USA that gets lots of coverage. this is about as indepth as the coverage gets. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amy Parks is likely to be a fairly common name and there will be many Ghits for unrelated topics. This Amy Parks fails WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:AUTHOR and the source at ninemsn cannot be considered as significant coverage or WP:RS even broadly construed. --Kudpung (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

she worked for the Nine Network which owns ninemsn so it's not third party either. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This reliance on google hits alone to determine notability is flawed, as has been pointed out on several occasions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find significant coverage. can you? your comment does not argue for notability though. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to WP:ENT 1. Amy Parks worked on Quizmania (a notable show), she has been a news reporter for two different Australian TV networks and was a musician for a band that released two albums. I've added references for some information into the article. More references are needed but that's not sufficient reason to delete this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above by shaidar cuebiyar. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias only deal with facts. A core policy of Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth". Whatever notability might be suggested here, it must be supported by any of the permissible reliable sources which must be verifiable. This article cannot be kept on a promise of perhaps finding sources at a later date. Kudpung (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought that an article in a recognised newspaper would have been a reliable source, as well as the various others cited in the article.Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Kudpung: I believe you have misunderstood my statement. I have provided reliable sources for the major claims made in the article and believe them to be sufficient to verify her notability. However I have not found references for all of the minor claims in the article, e.g. ref [3] verifies release of DVD, its name and a brief description of its use; however it does not give details of where it was released which is why the citation is in mid-sentence.
- Her notability is not merely 'suggested' in this article it is verified by the sources I added (and an additional one by Dan arndt). If there are any claims that you believe are unverified major ones then place a citation needed plate on them. If you believe that any of the additional sources supplied are not reliable then point them out here and we can discuss them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (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.