Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dash

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Dash

Zoey Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. One local newspaper article on her app does not make her notable. ubiquity (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Only other source I could find at all was a blog: [1]. Perhaps she will get more famous, but one non-local RS doesn't seem enough to me - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Total lack of anything approaching indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is also essentially a business listing the fact it goes to specific about business and career information (with that said, what's then listed trivial!), none of this comes close at all for actual substance, let alone actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creating an app is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets a WP:BLP on Wikipedia — it would count if she were getting quite a bit more coverage for it than has been shown here, but it's not an automatic notability freebie that entitles her to an article that's sourced this minimally. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be sourced much better than this, but Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which people are entitled to have an article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My sweeps of Canadian news didn't find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2016 (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.