Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber MacArthur

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. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amber MacArthur

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

This page has been around since 2004...and has been poorly sourced the entire time. The sources now are horrible. In order, they are:

Facebook
IMDB
An article written by MacArthur
Broken link that looks like it used to be MacArthur's blog
The site for a podcast featuring her
Archived profile on a site of a company she worked for
A site that MacArthur is working for
What probably used to be her resume but now doesn't work
Another error that used to point to a video by Amber
the same podcast as number 6
Consists largely of an email by MacArthur
Written by MacArthur
Just lists a podcast by her, not even mentioning her name
Links to Now magazine's front page. I found the article [1], and it's a trivial mention.

Also, GNews gets no hits. Howicus (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure that GNews got no hits? I found several just by clicking the news button in your nomination. As I am unfamiliar with MacArthur, I am unable to judge which ones count as substantial coverage, but here seem to be some: 1 2. There were also some book mentions, like this section here: 3. I can't say "keep" for sure, because I don't know if any of these count as substantial. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those...maybe I made a typo when I did my search. Howicus (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable - hundreds of source out there just need to take the time to upgrade the refs -- Moxy (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sheer number of Google hits is not everything. I just searched through the first five pages of the GNews link at the top of this discussion, and I found no good sources. Most of the articles I found were just quoting MacArthur. Howicus (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She has her own TV show and is a guess host on a few other shows. She is also a bestselling author with her opinions making the national news in Canada - what more can be said - people are clearly inquiring about the person as seen by the 4535 views in the last 90 days. There is also much info under the name Amber Mac -- Moxy (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A few minutes digging reveals many articles that focus on the subject such as this biographical one or this one profiling her 'celebrity' home. While digging, I also saw that MacArthur was the most followed Canadian on twitter in 2008 which must say something about her notability. Article may need work but subject clearly is notable.CooperDB (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Magoo (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete pages because they are poorly sources. We only delete if we do not believe that they can be properly sourced. We can't delete every page that needs to be improved. If the subject is notable, keep it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 23 August 2013 (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.