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 keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alanah Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Youtuber that fails WP:ANYBIO there's some mainstream press coverage but it focusses on a single event. There certainly isn't the in-depth criticism or analysis of the subject to provide enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NBLP. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure what "single event" is being referred to in the nomination. Pearce is an established journalist with a history of notability; the majority of sources are specifically about her (i.e. not passing mentions) and cover several events in her career. It's not a particularly long article, but that doesn't mean it warrants deletion. – Rhain ☔ 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment A paid editing gang from India created this page for money. They get their money by going around nominating pages for deletion then contacting the subject of the page for a nominal fee. I have contacted the subject of this page and offered to help them in exchange for information on this Indian paid editing operation who use child labour and are financing the taliban.Ferkingstad (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What? You nominated this article for deletion, not some Taliban-supporting cabal. Or are you explaining that this is why you nominated it? This is very strange. Furius (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That is a serious personal attack on another editor, asserting that they are a member of " a paid editing gang from India". Unless you have any evidence, please retract it. PamD 11:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - there is clear WP:GNG notability based on multiple independent and reliable sources in the article providing in-depth coverage focused on her and her career; and per the nominator's statement above, WP:SKCRIT#2d appears to apply. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Clear pass of WP:GNG, possibly a vexatious nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Profiles in major international news sources like The Guardian give her an easy pass of WP:GNG. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well sourced and well written article, clearly meets GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep on a procedural basis. As noted by other editors, this article clearly meets WP:GNG. Looking at the nominator's talk page exchange with User:StarryGrandma, it's clear that the nomination is made out of spite because an article they wrote got deleted. Suggest an administrator snow keep this nomination and perhaps sanction or warn the nominator for their disruptive behaviour. Haleth (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is referenced like a tank. Plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Not a close call in terms of notability. Clearly meets notability guidelines for the reasons that others have pointed out and the sources cited in the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obvious keep, doesn't need to say anything if why. LaryFoxBoy (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is no proof that it should be deleted 216.87.237.181 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 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.