Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaitlyn Wylde

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. j⚛e decker^talk 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Wylde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to have a promising future but does not currently meet the notability requirements for biographies. Pichpich (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most if not all sources there are blog-type material, Other than those listed I can't find any shred of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Easily fails WP:NACTOR at this point. No WP:RS to indicate otherwise. "a promising future" == WP:TOOSOON... --Jersey92 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. None of these citations are blogs. The New York Times, Amazon, Local Paper, IMDB. This page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.213.10 (talk • contribs)

IMDb is a database that lists (or tries to list) everyone who's ever appeared on screen, no matter how insignificant their part is. Moreover, it's considered unreliable since most content is user-submitted. The NYTimes link is useless since it's basically a page saying "we at the NYTimes have no idea who Kaitlyn Wylde is, though we see that she's listed at the All Movie Guide". As for the Amazon link, the biographical section is user-submitted so it doesn't count as third-party, reliable coverage which is what we're looking for. Pichpich (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What I'm seeing at IMDB is an obscure starlet with a handful of "Young Woman"/"Waitress"/uncredited bit parts. Just being on IMDB means nothing; my brother-in-law, who worked as an extra on a handful of films, has an IMDB page. Having a few pages published out of a Kindle bucketshop isn't impressive either: the sales rank on Kindle of her poetry pamphlet doesn't crack Amazon's top hundred thousand. Nha Trang 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Besides the above, it was created by an editor with a likely conflict of interest if "TC Books" is "Thought Catalog". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What notability there might be is not apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The New York Times source doesn't say anything about her. --Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2014 (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.