Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Symonds (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Sofia Symonds}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Sofia Symonds}})

While the text of this of article created in November 2021 is not substantially identical enough to be an outright WP:G4 candidate, it appear to me that the May 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Symonds concerns still apply here: WP:NMODEL, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. I note in particular that the purported USA Today reference includes a pop-up disclaimer: "this story is paid for by an advertiser. Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content." As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete GNG requires sources that are independent from the subject. An article that they or their agents paid to create does not count as such. Wikipedia is not a place for people to get inclusion by leveraging their paying for article creation in other places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delete The USA Today clearly says at the bottom it wasn't written by USA Today staff, it's a paid promotion piece? The others aren't looking much better. French wiki uses pretty much the same sources. A Gsearch shows an interview in a Morocco newspaper, a few in Arabic that I can't read. Not much else found. Just a pretty lady that does stuff online I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2022 (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.