Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Roe
I'll grant that she's not Lady Godiva. :) But to me widespread is less about the # of google hits and more about the breadth of press coverage. The sources currently in the article span at least 7 years (a couple didn't have publication dates). We've got the BBC, three different newspapers & Manchester Confidential which I can't precisely pin down. :) As I mentioned above, there was another Independent article and even coverage out of Africa which I didn't incorporate because of redundancy. I don't interpret "widespread coverage" as hundreds of hits, but as coverage across several separate reliable sources. According to the otability|notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no |original research is needed to extract the content". In this case, none is--except perhaps on the tv show. (I didn't add that myself for precisely the reason you mention; I don't personally know how extensive her involvement was. For a similar reason, I didn't add her book credit. Translated? What? :)) Her coverage is more substantial in some of the sources than others (certainly in the case of her personal interview), but I do not personally perceive it as trivial
— User:Moonriddengirl, 11:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Notability)