Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwendolyn M. Parker

:{{la|Gwendolyn M. Parker}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gwendolyn_M._Parker Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gwendolyn M. Parker}})

Procedural nomination. This is a WP:BLP of a television producer, which as written consists solely of a single sentence asserting her existence while completely failing to note or reliably source any indication that she satisfies any of our notability rules. (Television and film producers do not gain an automatic entitlement to keep Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and nobody involved in the film industry in any capacity gets an automatic notability freebie just because they have an IMDb profile to link to — rather, they must be reliably sourced as either passing WP:GNG, or satisfying a specific criterion such as winning a film or television award for one or more of their productions.) Was speedied A7, but the creator demanded that it be restored and taken to AFD instead. I still don't see it as anything but a WP:SNOWy redelete unless the substance and sourcing get beefed up well beyond where they're standing now, but Wikipedia process requires me to respect and honor the request nonetheless. It's still a delete unless major improvement happens before closure. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: added a few contributions of the writer/producer as well as changed to stub. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Probably delete - I'm very familiar with this writer's work but there's nothing particularly notable for a Wikipedia article (unless others want to accept an article like this). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Question Is this [https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/19/reviews/971019.19mcdowet.html former business executive] and [http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/parker/ writer] the same person? EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

::Possibly but not confirmed as this is not a very common name and both those links mention the book; I can't find anything to link all of it but it makes sense some of these production people have everyday jobs. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

:::This is a different person altogether. This person is a writer and creator of shows for several TV series, and not an author of the books mentioned above. The "what links here" tab in the article connects to several of the shows. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

::::The problem is that one of those two profiles contains some suggestion that Parker the book writer/business executive edged into some screenwriting as well (without, unfortunately, being specific about what film or television projects she may have written for) — so while we'd obviously need a much more solid source than we have now to assert that they are the same person, it's not nearly as cut and dried that they aren't the same person as you seem to think it is. If one or both of them are so poorly sourceable that it's impossible to definitively clarify one way or the other (e.g. by comparing properly sourced biographical details), then that very lack of adequate sourcing unfortunately argues against one or both of them being appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails the GNG, pure and simple. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Ghostwheel ʘ 03:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.