Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Corner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Corner[edit]

Priscilla Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by someone but the contesting user is not actually staying how exactly they will "confirm her notability" and whether they understand the need Ed improvements for actually accepting this; I still my PROD as the PR speak about her attention for her celebrity clients and customers speaks for itself. None of this actually suggests anything close at all for the needed depth. Being a "public figure" and being known for having known clients is not notability so I certainly hope that's not the defense of keeping this, which is what the user is suggesting apparently by "we had several photoshoots and she had a known client". SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really have a stance on the subject's notability, but i've cleaned up the article and added the references I could find, so that this AfD discussion can be done without concern of how well-written or not the article is. SilverserenC 06:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is in-depth coverage. Corner is recognized by many leading newspapers as a beauty expert such as here and here and here. Editors decided PC's views qualified as editorial content important to readers. If Corner had paid the newspaper to go there, then it's an advertisement; but she didn't.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they may well as be because those are exactly also offering her services hence an advertisement. None of thid is actuslly amounting to to non-PR or PR-like coverage. Also, there's been noticeable consensus before that several of these types of news media have a pay-for "method" of publishing "news". SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the said beauty expert skills have been recognized by two leading companies namely ITC and KEO KARPIN.I think the said companies would not have done so if she had no standing or notability.IT is not self promotions but merely stating facts...Kolkata786 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being named by two companies is essentially endorsements which happen quite frequently in exchange for money or services. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soumen491 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)priscilla corner signed a contract with both the leading companies mentioned which they paid her for expertise just like any artist featured in other Wikipedia pages are contracted to recording labels etc[reply]
  • Delete. advertisement. Notability doesn't even matter, because promotionalism is an even better reason for deletion. Of course, as is usual with promotional bios, she isn't notable. A notable stylist will have in depth articles from sources recognized internationally ,Nor would we expect good sources, for she has done nothing notable. "oficial beauty and hair columnist" for a newspaper is not notable. unless its a paper with recognized international authority, which the Kokota Telegraph is not, --but there isn't even evidence for it: the reference is to a single column which just says she wrote that column. . "Eastern Region head hair expert of the ... brand" is not a high level position. Stylist for "a number of celebrities" isn't meaningful unless they are very famous'--and there's no reference for this, so the sentence would have to be removed. Lets look at the actual references:
1, The Calcutta Telegraph is a mere mention as one of the performers in an article on a concert. She didn't even get a whole sentence.
2, KoraBuz Home is so extravagently written that it is impossible to take it seriously as other than an advertisement, anda rather foolish one at that
3, dna India is a mention that she among a number of other people , spoke at a fashion event.
4 is another mention of being one of the speakers at a fashion presentation--and events like this and the preceding one are designed and intended as opportunities for advertising. It's a if she spoke on a merchandising cable channel.
5 is a column she wrote.
6 is participation in another event,
7 is inclusion of one poem in an anthology
8 is a listing of a bit part in a film, from IMdB.

All in all, an excellent example of what are not reliable sources for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article honestly read like an autobiography or memoir. I think it should be a footnote somewhere or be removed. Pyrusca (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I would not consider a beauty column authored by the subject (link) offered above to be in-depth article on the subject. Coverage is trivial or PR like and is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kolkata786 (talk)these is a body of work spanning 25 years is not trivia .what would you considered substantialSoumen491 (talk) ~not delete.remove PROD tagYou rej ct an article for its brevity ( one snt nice) and then another because of its extrvagance, how does one strike a happy medium

2: she has contributed not one, but several. In her cpa it's as a Beauty Columnist for the T2 Telegraph, which has a readership of lakhs. She was also the beauty columnist for Femina Bangla, and has written for Cosmopolitan and Good housekeeping, both leader no magazines in India. 3: yes, she was onY a participant in the event mentioned by you, but she has headlined several events in her capacity as hair master for FIAMA DI wills 4: he, she has only one poem in the Anthology but do remember that it was shortlisted in the last 50 from contributions both nationally and internationally. 5: the bit part you said she had in a film, was actually two songs sound no by her, one a solo, and the other a duet with the real owned singer Abhijeet. 6: she was the lead female int the film THE OUTHOUSE AND it was shortlisted for the panorama film festival as lwell as the winner of THE SRINIVAS FOLLAPUDI AWARD for best new film. 7: she was also chosen as one of BANGALORES 30 woman achievers.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gollapudi_Srinivas_Award http://www.wellnessindia.com/salon/speakers2015.php

http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b82a9e7a4 http://www.presentedbyp.com/femina-bangla-launches-at-itc-sonar-kolkata/sKolkata786 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) remove PROD.as per wikipedia the telegraph newspaper founded and published in Kolkata since July 7 1982.According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation it has a circulation of 470020 copies as of July Dec 2015.The newspaper is fifth most widely read English newspaper in India as per Indian Readership Survey 2014.hope to write almost regularly for these newspaper as beauty columnist is not PR or endorsement or trivial.Kolkata786 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Telegraph_(Calcutta).reomove PRODTonguetwister 79 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)iam new to these page but I read all guidelines of Wikipedia for living people listing and other fellow Wikipedia editor comment I strongly feel these case will not go for deletion.REMOVE PROD.[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Priscilla_Corner&oldid=1138254861"