Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Atherton

Add links
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 no consensus. Even if there was a consensus, it would be keep. Kurykh (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Atherton

[edit]
Amber Atherton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose deletion based on questionable notability. Self-promotional article contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Citobun, thanks for taking the time to review this article! I see your proposed reason for deletion is "Self-promotional article". I did the bulk of the editing and re-writing of the original to try and ensure it was an informative article and not merely some type of publicity. The subject does have a degree of notability and "wiki" is often the top search after her name on google, hence the article creation.

I have come across several articles that have made me question why they were approved and this one is being question. Some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doina_Ciobanu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Matthews

And some that are clearly just stubs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Thompson_(TV_personality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Garner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-Francis_Vandelli

If you have any advice on how to improve the article I would be most grateful. Many thanks! Sierpinski6 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sierpinski6:. I am proposing deletion because it is not clear that the subject meets our notability criteria. The other articles you listed are not relevant (please review WP:OTHERSTUFF) – we review articles on their individual merits. Wikipedia has a ton of articles that do not meet notability criteria. Many are created by people with undeclared conflicts of interest, which is against the Wikimedia Foundation terms of service, for promotional purposes, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I call this a promotional article because the only two people who have made substantial edits are single-purpose accounts, the other one being the suspiciously-named User:Entreprenuerbritainofficial. Citobun (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-
Thank you for those links. I understand why my references to other articles are not relevant to the issue of deleting/keeping this one. I would like to add that I have no direct association with the subject. On review, I do agree that the phrase "shot to the limelight" sounds like PR talk and will edit that to more neutral phrasing. Aside from that I do think the article is purely factual, with no emotive language. I again request that it be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierpinski6 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edits have been to an article about this person, yet you claim to have no link to them? Would you care to explain how you came to write this article? It's not how a new editor typically behaves. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Exemplo347: , yes I have no direct link to this person. I wanted to get to grips with how editing works here and this article was suggested to me. I am really confused about the guidelines and how they seem to be selectively enforced. I could have chosen another minor public figure to make the same case. I continue to research and ask questions of more experienced users, and hope to be more active myself in the future, one I understand exactly what rules are followed and when. Sierpinski6 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an indirect link? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: Sorry, as you know I am new here, what do you mean by an indirect link? Sierpinski6 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC) @Exemplo347: Ah, was being a little dense there! I suppose we do have an indirect link through "6 degrees of separation" but we do not actually know each other and I am in no way being implored or compensated to publish this article. Sierpinski6 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article could certainly be expanded but at this point is factual and has a range of references, including several interviews and profiles in mass media. The subject is clearly notable. I have absolutely no connection with the subject. Yaxu (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references are a collection of PR, passing mentions, primary sources, interviews (which are not considered Independent sources), and articles about her company rather than the person herself. Lots of weak sources - not the Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the GNG demands. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the guideline that says interviews are not considered independent sources please? Yaxu (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry found it, will review my vote in the morning. Yaxu (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347:@Yaxu: Hope it's okay to jump in here. The guidelines state that ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". What would be a good independent source here? I included major publications (e.g. Vogue, The Telegraph, Drapers),in fact none of the sources were produced by the subject. I understand interviews etc are all some kind of PR but I thought (perhaps ignorantly?) that choosing these sources provided a better case for notability than less well known sources. I know that the articles I mentioned previously have no bearing on the publication of this one but I am genuinely interested in how these guidelines are implemented. Perhaps there is a better place I could discuss this but it seems to be luck of the draw on who chooses to review things. I would understand if this was deleted with good reason but it rather seems to be a matter of opinion. I am very interested to see how it is resolved.Sierpinski6 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference to the Adobe blog Sierpinski6 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:Sorry to bombard you! But you used the fact that most sources were "about her company rather than the person herself". Why should an article about a business person be about their personal life rather than their business and business philosophy? I am now well aware of the rule against citing other articles as an argument to keep or delete but perhaps you could browse the articles on businesspeople list if you consider this query.Sierpinski6 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be addressing the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument again as it has been sufficiently addressed twice already. You should read Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guidelines to assist you. In the future, when you create an article, I'd suggest using the Article Creation wizard and then submitting your article for review before it is published. As for the Conflict of Interest concern, you still haven't addressed my question - how did you come to create this article? Please be very specific if you want to be treated with good faith. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read |the guidelines carefully I still vote Keep. The subject has received a wide range of attention over a period of time, the interviews are conducted by independent journalists in widely distributed and generally respected publications and so count towards evidence of notability, and comments by interviewers count as secondary sources. Yaxu (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the duplicate keep vote. Citobun (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fashion industry is one of the largest in the world, not "some very small field", so I'm not sure that's a fair argument for deletion. Sierpinski6 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was not named "6th most powerful" in fashion, but in the sub-set digital fashion, and only by one publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amber_Atherton&oldid=1078161411"