Marnie Alton : The notability claim here essentially boils down to "person who has done stuff", which isn't a free inclusion pass in and of itself -- the bridge between existence and notability travels through WP:GNG -worthy reliable source coverage.  But of the seven footnotes here, four are her own self-published primary source web presence, one is a directory entry in an IMDb clone, and one just briefly namechecks her existence within coverage of somebody else -- and the only source that's actually both third-party and about Marnie Alton in any non-trivial sense comes from a digital magazine of debatable GNG-worthiness, and even if we accepted it, it still takes a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG.  There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more RS coverage than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople ,  and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television ,  and Health and fitness .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apparenly I created this article back in 2013, but I can't for the life of me remember whom this person is; thus, I really have no opinion.  Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Erpert interesting.  I added some new citations, so check again and vote please.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have found and added several new sources.  She meets WP:BASIC .  These are the new sources: racked.com , womenshealthmag.com , Insider , eonline , bodyandsoul Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Racked is not a reliable source at all , and the rest of those all just briefly glance off the existence of Marnie Alton while being fundamentally about Drew Barrymore , which is not at all the kind of sourcing we require.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bearcat If you gonna claim a publication is not reliable, you need to explain your reasoning.  It is not listed on WP:RSP .  While it went out of business in 2016, it doesn't appear to be a small shop or one-man blog/publication.  There are multiple writers and it had hundreds of original articles.  A backlink search on majestic.com shows the site has 18,000+ unique backlinks.  So this is not your small mom-and-pop blogger.  In addition, to current citations, there exists dozens of other citations for the subject that I didnt add.  My main reasoning for keeping is WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."  Royal88888 ( talk ) 04:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] RSP is not a definitive list of all possible websites in the world and their status as reliable or unreliable — it's a consultable summary guide of a specific selection of sites that tend to come up for repeated debate , in the hopes of avoiding "the 768th revival of the same debate we've already had 767 times before".  So a site not being listed there is not proof in and of itself that it's a reliable source: it's just proof that there haven't previously been 767 arguments about its use, and says nothing whatsoever about whether that lack of debate is because the site is uncontroversially reliable, uncontroversially unreliable , or just doesn't tend to even get attempted for use in the first place.  One of the requirements for a web publication to be considered a reliable source is that its editorial masthead is named on a page so that we know there was, and who was in, a defined editorial chain of command .  This is because some web publications are just user-generated content , which lets anybody submit anything without any editorial judgement or fact-checking at all , so we have to be able to determine which side of that line a publication falls on by seeing evidence that they had fact-checkers and an editorial hierarchy.  On Racked, I cannot find any such masthead page at all.  I didn't say the problem with your other sources was that they're short , I said the problem with them was that they aren't about Marnie Alton , and just briefly namecheck Marnie Alton in the process of being about Drew Barrymore .  Several distinct sources to overcome lack of depth is for "the sources are about Marnie Alton but they're kind of short", not for "the sources briefly mention Marnie Alton but aren't about her" — the latter falls under trivial coverage that cannot support notability at all .  And, in addition, since they're all just about Drew Barrymore's exercise regimen, even if we accepted them as being "about" Marnie Alton they'd still all just make her a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who had achieved sustained coverage for anything of ongoing significance.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The articles focus on Drew Barrymore's weight loss and improved health happening as a direct result of Marnie Alton's ability as a fitness trainer.  Marnie's credibility as a fitness expert is connected to Drew Barrymore's weight loss.  There are multiple sources where Marnie Alton is the focus of the article or segment as a fitness health expert and of course Drew Barrymore is also talked about throughout because she is a global celebrity.  These include magazine articles, tv appearances and online articles.  Here are some examples: https://nypost.com/2020/02/26/meet-the-trainer-responsible-for-drew-barrymores-20-pound-weight-loss/ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=ZAIao3Vs5Ac https://www.instagram.com/reel/B9PdMt1npTd/ https://people.com/health/drew-barrymore-santa-clarita-diet-trainer/ https://edit.sundayriley.com/marnie-alton-lessons/ https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/g32454003/drew-barrymore-workout-routine/ 2603:8000:D001:385E:71BA:EA41:1502:E927 ( talk ) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] YouTube videos and Instagram posts can't support notability, Sunday Riley isn't a reliable source at all, and what's left isn't changing the equation.  We don't care about Marnie Alton's "credibility" as a fitness expert, we care about her notability as a fitness expert, and her notability as a fitness expert requires sources that are about her , not sources that are about her clients.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She could at best get a one sentence mention in the Drew Barrymore article, nothing she helped lose the weight.  I don't see much beyond that to be honest.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – WP:TOOSOON Indeed, lots of reliable sources mention her and credit her for helping people in fitness, but not much about her, thus not fully meeting WP:GNG .  TLA (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PR newswire items, PopSugar and the Daily Mail are what comes up.  Helping Drew Barrymore lose weight isn't notable.  I can't see any sourcing we can use either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Racked article has nothing to do with Drew Berrymore and is a good one for notability.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 07:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's already been addressed above why Racked isn't "a good one" for notability.  And even if we overlooked that and accepted it anyway, passage of GNG still requires a lot more than just one acceptable source.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Royall88888.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 12:03, 19 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete