Sommer Ray (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)

Her page is barebones and you can't expand it with anything that isn't promo content. She clearly isn't notable enough. Strawberries1 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sport of athletics, Internet, and Colorado. SK2242 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Strawberries1: For future AfDs, you may want to make sure that this is transcluded on the log page and that you notify the article's creator. I’ve done that for you this time, but there are also instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO. SK2242 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The sourcing isn’t amazing (People Magazine being the best one there) but it scrapes past WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per SK2242. A hard one to assess because there's so much coverage of her, it's just than 99% of it is useless garbage. But agree that there's enough in marginally reliable sources that she probably scrapes past WP:GNG. Hard to tell whether all of these meet WP:RS, but here are a few more articles about her that at least have a bylined reporter and seem not terrible: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] MCE89 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two of those links are just about who she dated, which is irrelevant. She dated MGK, so what? And Taylor Holder is a nobody. Her having a dating podcast that she no longer goes on isn't relevant, either. The Seventeen article is probably the best link there, but it's not like there's a page for Imaraïs. If there was actually "so much coverage of her" (relevant coverage, anyway), then you'd actually be able to expand this article with credible sources. Strawberries1 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by the subject matter being irrelevant or useless, Strawberries1? As long as it is SIGCOV of her, it doesn't matter what we think of the subject matter - the fact that there's coverage about who she's dating or that she had a podcast is fine to count towards WP:GNG as long as it meets the other requirements. And your personal beliefs like Taylor Holder being "a nobody" definitely aren't things that we can consider when assessing notability. The only requirements are that that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Is there one of those requirements that you think isn't met here? MCE89 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The subject passes WP:GNG's multiple non-trivial guideline, and that's all there is to it. This may be the most common debate on AfD: Whether an article that is barely notable is instead not notable...but "barely notable" by definition means notable. This article is about a very minor celebrity who nevertheless has made the news. -Markeer 01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Markeer, WP:N says even notable topics can be deleted if they fail NOT or aren't encyclopedic. BLP also requires we use the highest-quality sources. I would argue an article that can only really contain a timeline of someone's dating history based on pure tabloid churnalism does not warrant inclusion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't really a hill I'm going to die on as I'll re-iterate that I believe the celebrity to be a minor one, but to address your argument that BLP requires highest-quality sources, I'll remind you that, intuitive or not, both People Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter are listed in green ("reliable") on Wikipedia's list of Perennial sources (and Cosmopolitan is yellow for situationally reliable). I happen to personally agree that I would not trust those news sources on e.g. critical political news or world affairs, but Wikipedia consensus judges them to be reliable sources when discussing celebrity news.-Markeer 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not particularly attached to this either, I just wanted to point out that per NOPAGE and NOT the existence of coverage doesn't mean we have to include the subject of that coverage in a standalone. I interpreted your !vote as leaning toward the "sigh, I guess we have to have an article" direction and figured the above was worth pointing out. I think a decent argument can also be made that the depth of the coverage is also very lacking (gossip about IG posts suggestive of relationships). Regarding People, the last major discussion on it was in 2014, about the magazine rather than the online posts, and the gist of it was leaning more toward "probably reliable for straightforward facts, gossipy material on celebrity relationships is likely UNDUE". I'm of the opinion that there's still a difference between RS and high-quality RS, and articles on BLPs should be based on the latter. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The People article is basically entirely just relaying what she's said, no secondary discussion. The Seventeen and Cosmo "articles" are tabloid trash—essentially nothing encyclopedic in either of them. Nine has almost zero info on her that isn't in quotes. THR has about one sentence on Ray, the rest is announcing a podcast she cohosts. Same with WWD, about some "vitamin gummies" racket she's the "face" of. Per NOPAGE, coverage existing does not mean we have to have an article! JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete little to no serious third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk)
• Delete — (moderate) — Fails SIGCOV, and -- while it may not be immediately apparent given the vast number of articles apparently out-there -- I believe the vast majority fail WP:RS. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE may also be an issue, here. I would also take issue with what certain editors consider SIGCOV; SIGCOV is defined as "...address[ing] the topic directly and in detail... and is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Further, I would also contend that we're getting into WP:NOTGOSSIP territory with many/most of these sources. I would second JoelleJay's contention that the encyclopedic aspect of Wikipedia must be respected and acknowledged and that WP:RS is indeed a fantastic hill to die on, if any. MWFwiki (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we could expand it with more information on her role in Save the Kids coin scandal. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  She had no role beyond giving it a small endorsement. Strawberries1 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and the sources seem to fail the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of WP:SECONDARY. Being such lazy regurgitations of primary sources (social media mainly) also makes intellectual independence questionable, in the same vein as interview responses. I don't believe this meets our inclusion criteria even without leaning on WP:NOT. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]