Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leandra Medine

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 keep. A Train^talk 07:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leandra Medine

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

pure advertisement, with overemphasis of personal life. If by any chance the subject is notable--which I doubt-- a proper article can be written, but the first step is to remove this one. PR should not be allowed to persist in WP and this article has been inexcusably here since 2012. DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Do you have an opinion about notability? Carrite (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO and OR heavy. Agricola44 (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional. Fuzchia (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Do you have an opinion about notability? Carrite (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There does seem to be some genuine coverage which would ensure WP:BIO is attained, and it is clealy promotional at the moment. I would think a heavy copyedit is needed. scope_creep (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is notable, based on the extensive reliable and verifiable sourcing about her and her blog. If there genuine concerns about promotional content, the next step is to fix the article, not delete it. None of the delete votes have mentioned notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is clearly notable - from refs in article + cursory BEFORE. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Promotional material should be cut out via editing - if need be the article could be stubbed down (retaining a short summary, the infobox, and pic).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly promotional article, and she's not terribly notable to begin with.Nick012000 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:N Bobherry Talk Edits 12:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)/[reply]
Changing to Incubate to remove WP:PROMO content due to that fact that the subject is WP:N Bobherry Talk Edits 21:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:NOT, I might change my mind if someone showed it could be fixed. Dysklyver 21:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly. Coverage from Cosmopolitan, Elle, the New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Huffington Post ... over the course of 4 years ... come on. This is not in doubt. Deletion, as they say, is NOTCLEANUP; or for those who don't like that essay, WP:DEL4, which is presumably the reason for deletion people are grasping for who are writing "overly promotional"; WP:DEL4 says "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" - whatever you think of the promotion, there is plenty of encyclopedic content. If you think it's too promotional, make it less so, but the subject has clearly shown itself to be notable, so per our policies, should not be deleted. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag any concern. Actually she passes WP:GNG and there are many reliable sources about her. Promotional tone can be corrected by anybody –Ammarpad (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't start to tell you how much I hate the Daily Mail quote in the lead. Fuck that paper and all its minions. That said, this is a clear and obvious pass of GNG on the basis of sources showing in the footnotes. Even the nominator fails to present a policy-based rationale for deletion, instead going the IDONTLIKEIT and SEEMSPROMOTIONAL route. Tsk tsk. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 29 October 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.