Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormy Wellington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Stormy Wellington
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Stormy Wellington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is an influencer who does not appear to meet the Notability (people) criteria. The article is written in a promotional tone and appears to be a COI/paid creation, as evidenced by celebratory promotional graphics shared on the subject's social media. External sources provided are non-independent or lack significant depth. EmmChuKC (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 April 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Florida, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete no WP:SIGCOV regarding this person's professional work, two RS (Rolling Stone and Essence) discuss a viral video. There's a passing mention from 2021 about a then-forthcoming reality tv show, but could not find any futher non-tabloid sources. There are a couple of articles about her recent court case but not enough for WP:CRIME. Orange sticker (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete no WP:SIGCOV and by my source assessment:
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Bylined piece, not affiliated with subject. |
 Per WP:TABLOID |
 Focus is on a tv show she took part in, half of it is about her. |
✘ No | |
| Bylined piece, website has clear editorial policy. |
Per WP:DISTRACTIFY |
Whole article is about her. |
✘ No | |
| Largely based on an interview |
Per WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE |
Only talks about a viral video |
✘ No | |
| Primary source |
We better hope the Federal Trade Commision is reliable |
Document is about an event she took part in. |
✘ No | |
| Largely based on an interview |
Long-standing magazine |
Only talks about a viral video |
✘ No | |
| Not affiliated with her, bylined |
Per WP:RSPDEADLINE |
Passing mention as tv show participant. |
✘ No | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
More eyes on the article in the meantime would be nice, the subject posted on Instagram "Welcome me to Wikipedia" with a link to this article and it's going viral. There's already been a low level of disruption judging by the history. SecretSpectre (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- weak keep: Was the subject of a lawsuit by the FTC for alleged fraud/selling a consumer product , that helps notability. Probably just enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd argue coverage about a "viral video" is notable; it is how people gain celebrity status these days. I don't necessarily think that makes them worse off, but "famous for being famous" is a thing since Paris Hilton came along. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I get what you mean but Paris Hilton is an odd example to use here. Paris Hilton grew up as a wealthy socialite from a famous family and became very successful through her connections and media coverage. The subject of this article doesn't seem to have enjoyed any privileges growing up, however high powered connections are not needed to go viral, which is why most who find "fame" that way find it does not last and will not have a career that could be considered notable. Both articles covering the video are interviews, so I agree with @SecretSpectre's assessment that they don't count towards WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'd argue coverage about a "viral video" is notable; it is how people gain celebrity status these days. I don't necessarily think that makes them worse off, but "famous for being famous" is a thing since Paris Hilton came along. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- 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.