Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kassy Dillon

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. Missvain (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kassy Dillon

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

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

almost everything here is her own bio on the web pages of places she write for; the only true 3rd party ref seems to be a very short item no,.2, aboutone of her postings DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political commentator isn't an automatic notability freebie, regardless of whether the person is a liberal or a conservative. The notability test requires the ability to reference her work as a commentator to third party reliable source coverage and analysis about her work as a commentator in sources that don't sign her paycheques, and is not passed by either her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, or sources which briefly soundbite her in the process of being primarily about Andrew Yang. There's only one source here that counts for anything at all toward the notability test, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG per the above votes. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks in-depth, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for a journalist. This is true of many of our article on journalist, but we deal with what we have before us and do not let other short comings keep us with the ones we currently see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - she's written for notable but not reliable sources, so we can't even cite what she's written. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2020 (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.