Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cydney Mar (2nd nomination)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cydney Mar[edit]

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

Non-notable person. A former skater (whose career was ended by injury before she reached any level of notability) and present fashion designer (of little note except for her self-promotion on QVC). Sources are scant and of local interest and none recent enough to be available online. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. I've found some offline writeups of her (such as The Globe and Mail 15 Feb 1983: F.2.). It might be she qualifies for an article per WP:GNG, but somebody neutral would need to take the time to put the sources in a new article (with proper citations, including page numbers), and make an entirely new article, using nothing of the current version, keeping to only what reliable sources say. As currently written, it could almost be speedied as blatant advertising, and keeping it would be rewarding spam. --Rob (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, the fact that the sources aren't online isn't relevant to whether she's notable enough for Wikipedia or not — we are allowed to reference stuff to offline print sources. As long as we provide sufficient citation detail that somebody can locate the relevant sources if needed, we do not require instantaneous and universal access to those sources to be available via Google. What is more determinative here, however, is that the article is fundamentally written as an advertisement rather than as a properly neutral encyclopedia article — I can't prove this outright, but the writing tone and the heavy emphasis on entirely unsourced biographical detail are quite strongly pinging my conflict of interest radar. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good version which properly and neutrally demonstrates her notability, but this version is definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2014 (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.