Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taryn Williams (entrepreneur)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Williams (entrepreneur)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unwisely accepted from AfC. A combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism . The awards are relatively trivial--among the many such awards that are not recognized for ntoability and serve only for PR The Huff. Post is unreliable for notability , especially of blps. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question- where is the policy or consensus that Huffpost is unreliable for notability? I was under the impression that opinion articles are not reliable, but if they are written by staff writers as is the case here (Andrea Beattie, Small Business Writer, HuffPost Australia), they can be is considered as reliable. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's too much close paraphrasing from the sources for my liking. Quite a few of the choicest puffy phrases ('turnover in the millions', 'two-sided marketplace for creative talent', 'over 6,500 talent on the platform') are directly copied from [onyamagazine.com/australian-affairs/onyapreneurs/onyapreneur-taryn-williams-founder-of-wink-models-theright-fit here] according to Earwig's copyvio tool, and a lot of the rest of the content too close for comfort. If this is kept, it needs a severe pruning to remove puffery and copyvio. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with this. There is significant and sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources: The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and the Huffington Post staff Small Business Writer. In addition, there is coverage in Marie-Claire [1] and Business News Australia [2]. Definitely meets WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a clear violation of WP:PROMO. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. I think it's also an obvious COI problem we need to address, at least. Skirts89 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article only exists to promote its subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have removed promotional content.Ha.Mark.De (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ha.Mark.De had already removed most of the puff, I did a bit more pruning. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for WP:SOAP. Not enough significant sources to have a page, possibly COI. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not notable enough and promotional. scope_creep^Talk 00:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ShunDream who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

(I think you meant WP:AfC) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I did. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2019 (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.