Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Chang Rickert

: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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[Kelly Chang Rickert]]=

:{{la|Kelly Chang Rickert}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kelly_Chang_Rickert Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kelly Chang Rickert}})

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Speedy keep #2 [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=Boleyn&max=250&startdate=20130116&altname= deletion spree unquestionable disruption].  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete owing to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject per the general notability criteria. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • comment there are plenty of sources in the article. While some are clearly not indpendent reliable sources, others appear to be. It would be helpful to understand the objections of those above. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

::The sources are:

::*a webpage with no text, just six photographs[http://tv.yahoo.com/shows/the-law-firm/photos/].

::*a top level page for the reality show 'Law Firm'. There are three stories on that page; none mention the subject[http://www.realitytvworld.com/thelawfirm/].

::*an IMDB entry for the subject. IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source per WP:IMDB[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3666194/].

::*an article about Britney Spears in which the subject is one of a number of people to comment on Spears' troubles at that time[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571047/britney-spears-can-get-her-kids-back-top-lawyers.jhtml]

::*an article about Britney Spears in which the subject is one of a number of people to comment on Spears' troubles at that time[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1574106/britney-spears-bad-driving-huge-problem.jhtml].

::*the home page of a web resource for legal issues[http://www.gottrouble.com/].

::*the home page of the website of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists[http://www.acfls.org/].

::*an IMDB link for the subject's husband[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3665466/].

::*the home page of a website for an after school tutoring business[http://www.lakeside-learning.com/]

::*a programming page(?) at the Canal 22 website, no mention of the subject[http://www.canal22.tv/KNBC/YOURLATV/video/legalgrind.html].

::*a web page for what appears to be a video hosting service[http://www.videojug.com/tag/alimony-and-child-custody]

::*a page of a TV guide, no mention of the subject[http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/hollywood-411/198563]

::*IMDB entry for a 2012 documentary[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1531622/]

::None of these contain significance coverage of the subject so to meet the general notability criteria nor can I find any. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm on the fence here. I think the use of her as an expert on various documentaries probably meets the letter of WP:ENT (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.) But I don't think it plainly crosses that boundry and I don't think the GNG is satisfied. I'll remain neutral on this one. Thanks to Malcolmx15 for the more detailed analysis. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

: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.