Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Coladangelo (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I see a consensus for deletion, in light of issues with the type of sources and many of them not being about the article subject herself, and the keep !votes do not refute these points. Complex/Rational 22:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Coladangelo

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gina Coladangelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOTINHERIT. Almost all the coverage relates to her notable husband. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither keep !vote really refutes the nominator's rationale here, relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the issue here is that the coverage of her almost always names her husband. Would she achieve the same coverage if she didn't have a notable husband? LibStar (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There lots of coverage, most is about her having "broken the rules" during the covid lock downs... I'm not sure that alone makes her notable. Her career seems rather routine. If she had not "broken the rules" I don't think there would be enough based on the career alone to keep the article. Adding the scandal part to the story, I'm not sure that helps notability.Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She basically worked in marketing and communications, not terribly notable and very much a rather routine part of any company. She didn't create any award-winning adverts, coin a new slogan that stuck in the popular memory or do much of anything really, other than direct how corporate communications are worded and presented to the public. And the length of her career hasn't been terribly long either, meaning she's not been a "trail blazing" woman with over 40 yrs in the British ad industry. Just a mid -level marketing expert. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Most sources are about her husband. I concur with Oaktree b as well. TLA (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable enough to meet WP:GNG, and yet is overshadowed by her connection to two more notable people. Even if we were to delete the article, we would have to have a redirect, but to whom? She was married to Oliver Tress from 2009 until 2021, and has since been with Matt Hancock. Looks 50/50 to me, so another argument in favour of keeping things as they are. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to lead to be leading towards deletion; further input on the possibility of redirecting would however be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Her only notability being half of a political scandal and nothing of real note careerwise outside adjacency by marriage to two bluelink men fulfills exactly why WP:1E is a good notability guideline to cite here; there should be no redirect to any of the subject's partners. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - including according to WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies; WP:BLP states, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Most of the lead focuses on scandal; the article appears to substantially be based on sensationalism (it even includes what WP:THESUN "said"), with a pseudobiography grafted onto it, and most sources dated from 25 June 2021 - 28 June 2021. The limited, sensationalized, and repetitive coverage does not amplify GNG notability. I also think the BLP issues weigh against redirection. Beccaynr (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Coladangelo_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1198719761"