Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Bamford

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. The person seems to be notable, but the article still looks like an ad. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Bamford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably not a speedy deletion candidate, but I just do not see how this lady is notable. She is a head of family business, which is claimed to get some awards, but until we can find what major awards these are, and in what reliable sources were they reported, the article fails WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is an unsourced biography of a living person and reads like an advert / press release. However, Bamford and her businesses have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Luxist coverage of her beauty products, and each boutique. She and her husband are noted as extremely wealthy. She is covered in conjunction with her fashion line. Also covered in conjunction with her organic farm shop. The shop itself has been reviewed indicating it isn't some minor little family business. Coverage in the Telegraph. And a feature article about her. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There were a lot more results but this is more than sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Examples include, (but are not limited to): [1], [2], [3]. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 5 September 2012 (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.