Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katy Brinson
Delete'''/'''Oppose keep as failing |GNG''' per nom and {{u|Missvain}}. A Google web search turns all up all of 67 non-duplicate search results for the subject—all directory listings, passing mentions, and trivial coverage. The "keep" !votes are either |vague waves as a policy or an essay, or they're not making policy-based reasons for keeping.  is a ''guidance essay'' in that it offers ''supposed notability guidance'' (commonly abbreviated as an SNG). Many editors, incorrectly, in my view misapply it that it is a ''substitute'' for . It is ''not''. One needs only read bullet point #1 of the nutshell which states, and I quote, with '''emphasis''':  "A person is '''presumed''' to be notable '''if''' he or she has received '''significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'''." The |good-faith digging of sources by duffbeerforme are trivial mentions to her supposed "billings" (common sense and ''none'' of the points at  make ''any'' mention to "billings" as qualifying coverage). (I should note that the most, save for one, of the !votes are spinoff rationales of this flawed argument.) Similar to  for corporations, I'd call that trite and trivial coverage. Not every actor gets an article. I'd be okay with a '''weak draftification''' here, at a satisfice|satisficing outcome, but, at present, we cannot allow this article to remain in the encyclopedia. Poorly sourced content on non-notable persons is, for lack of a better word, article spam, which, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia
— User:Dmehus, 17:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:VAGUEWAVES||WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG||WP:AGF||WP:NACTOR||WP:CORPDEPTH (Wikipedia:Notability)