Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bee Tucker
unless somebody can actually find the correct calibre of sourcing to get her over . A person's notability is not demonstrated by (a) their staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer, (b) blogs, (c) Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves, or (d) anybody's Twitter tweets — a person's notability is demonstrated by being the ''subject'' of content in |reliable sources they ''aren't'' affiliated with, such as books and media outlets ''other'' than the one that signs their paycheque. But every single reference here is one or more of the four things I had to list as the ''wrong'' kind of sources. She'd be eligible to keep an article that was ''properly'' referenced to notability-supporting sources, but none of the sources here constitute support for notability at all — and no, the fact that her employer happens to be the BBC, whose ''journalism'' would obviously be a reliable source in many other contexts, does not mean its staff profiles of its own employees magically reify into notability-supporting sources for those employees, because a source has to be ''independent'' of the topic to actually count as support for notability. The rule is ''not'' that as long as the article ''says'' potentially notable stuff, the sources can be just ''any'' flotsam that technically verifies them even if she and her employer created said sources themselves — the quality and depth and range and volume and ''independence'' of the sourcing ''is'' the notability test
— User:Bearcat, 11:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)