Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Threats

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. This AFD doesn't cover draft articles in Draft or User space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Threats (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)

Fails WP:NCREATIVE based on sources cited. Created by either a paid or COI account on behalf of the subject (self-admitted at WP:Help desk) that has now been blocked. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, a search finds the usual fluff on social media but per Dr vulpes nothing much that would establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for the reviewing admin: User:Hamley24/sandbox is a mirror of the article before it was scrutinized for notability. It's full of puffery and doesn't qualify for CSD as far as I know, but should be deleted along with this article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (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.