Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura K. Inamedinova

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. So Why 07:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura K. Inamedinova[edit]

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

Zero independent coverage in reliable sources. Promotional, almost certainly undisclosed paid editing. SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the one who improved the page and challenged the PROD, I believe the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent media sources ranging from Forbes to the Huffington Post, VentureBeat and Entrepreneur and the list goes on (references section). I don't really want to be judgemental, but I left a message on SmartSE's talk page after improving the page asking for suggestions and if the issues raised are removed to which I got no response other than nominating the article for deletion. Also, to say there is undisclosed paid editing, that is very serious accusation without a tangible evidence provided.Lukasds (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huffington Post, Forbes and Entrepreneur are all unreliable sources that anyone (including the subject of this article) can submit content to. They're of no use for conferring notability and they don't even contain any biographical information about her. Venturebeat is slightly better but it contains a slight mention of her in an article about the company she worked for - zero use for demonstrating the notability of her.

And RE paid editing: A brand new editor creates a fully-formed article with images uploaded 4 days earlier by a different account that's highly suspicious. When then, you turn up and as your "first" edit remove the PROD (you're down with the lingo I see) and try to salvage the article that's even more suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Huffington Post, Forbes and Entrepreneur are not reliable sources, I'm not sure what is. Even following my heart, I feel these sources do confer notability of the subject. Regarding the VentureBeat article, try searching using 'Inamedinova' instead. You will see almost all the article giving a report of her about Plag. These are not the only sources. There are nich-specific ones where she receives significant coverage as well.

Not really, there are many scenarios to this other than being on a paid mission and I guess you would know that. The same goes to down-with-the-lingo thing. Me defending the article is suspicious? Seriously? Again, these very serious accusations without a tangible evidence provided even when you are an admin. Lukasds (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The HuffPo and Enterpreneur articles are interviews with Inamedinova; she is a columnist for Forbes. None of these sources meet the "independence" criteria of WP:GNG. The VentureBeat source isn't about her, it just quotes her. Same for ArcticStartup. The other sources which might demonstrate notability are in Lithuanian, and I'm not really qualified to judge the, but the English-language sources cited in the article are not by themselves sufficient to show notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best WP:TOOSOON. Renata (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This skirts the GNG boundary; it's a reasonably close call. Jump ball goes to deletion based on he fact that this was created of by a single-purpose account that smacks of having been an undisclosed paid editor. When will WMF get serious about installing some sort of real registration process to make generation of sock accounts extremely difficult verging on impossible? Carrite (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Plenty of sources reporting on her. Erin93 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no articles about her in reliable sources. There are literally hundreds of bloggers and content makes like her. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references are either by her, or quote her. Nothing about her. She's in every editor's rolodex for a quote. Did any editor ever send someone out to do a profile piece? No. When two do, I vote yes. Rhadow (talk) 17:49, 24 August 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.