Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Skillings

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pamela Skillings

Pamela Skillings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable business person whose main claim of notability seems to be a blog and a yet-to-be-released book. No significant independent coverage. Notability tag was added in October 2007 and removed two days later without significant additions by account who recently has been spamming Wikipedia with links to Skillings' website (with deceptive edit summaries). Possible WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues; editor who added the article is an WP:SPA. Torc2 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. Notability not established from blog and/or future book. Agree probably spam. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable, independent references. Pburka (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Popular columnist on About.com and Lifehack.org. Numerous references in Yahoo Finance, Investors Business Daily, Christian Science Monitor Plato6006 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC) — Plato6006 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • comment of the sources added, only one (the Yahoo article, and even that is questionable) meets WP:RS. The others are blogs or self-published material. This does not establish significant coverage. Also worth noting the similarities between the user names of Plato6006 and the article creator, Jbean6006 still raises WP:COI issues.
  • comment I disagree with your assessment. The coverage is from national periodicals Yahoo Finance, Investor's Business Daily, Christian Science Monitor. Honestly, I really don't see why you're taking issue with the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plato6006 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So let's review this source by source:

1. LifeHack.org - is a primary source, not independent coverage.
2. Christian Science Monitor - Is a single quote from Skilling, not an article about her. It is a trivial mention that does not help establish notability.
3. ^ Yahoo Finance - Us mostly about the topic of job satisfaction, not about Skilling. Her name is mentioned and she is often quoted, but it's not really about her. It's weak evidence of notability.
4. ^ Pamela Skillings - Not independent, promotional in nature.
5. ^ Skillful Communications - Not independent.

With that addressed, I hope you'll respond to my questions: Are you affiliated in any way with Ms. Skilling or her company? And are you the same editor as the one who created the article? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I looked at the blog site extensively, and it does not seem to be spammy. It seems more along the lines of the Tim Ferris blog. She does seem to be a legitimate author with a book from Random House and other notable references.(Also, since I just started I don't think its fair to call my account "single purpose" - it has after all only been a day. My other interests include philosophy, pop culture, physics. Please don't immediately discount my opinion. Doing research on proposed deletions seems one of the easiest ways to begin contributing - Cheers). Plato6006 (talk) 4:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - You voted twice? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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.