Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Allison (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Allison

[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)

Non-notable personality with no clear multiple independent secondary references that would support her significance or notability as per WP:GNG Nearlyevil665 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems that the article is well referenced, however having gone through every single source, you'll see they are all either primary, or related to the subject. There are some notability claims, however I couldn't find any IRS that would back that. When the article was first nominated for deletion in 2009 it was kept unanimously, however at this point I don't see how any of the notability guidelines can be met. Less Unless (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the last discussion one of the people voting keep admitted there was autobiographical material and conflict of interest. Such things should lead to automatic deletion and leaving it to later let an independent person create an article if they deam it necessary. However here we also have a total failure of GNG, so even if we ignored autobiographical issues there is no reason to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, off the promotional tone screams WP:TNT. I see a few articles by her, but absolutely nothing in reliable sources about her. She has 49,000 followers on Twitter, a testament to her follow-back and self-promotion strategies. This is a total fail of WP:GNG. I can't believe this was kept in 2009. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Advised. I'm not sure if that TV show is notable, but so long as it is an article, redirecting to the show in which she was a host makes sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2021 (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.