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.
Based on edit history and photo image credits, this article appears to be largely, if not entirely, self-generated by the subject. Beyond this, the style is that of a promotional piece or advertisement. Although the author has provided references for herself, seems to be non-notable. Related resume-like article for
Joey Rahimi was previously agreed to be deleted on similar grounds.
Shorn again (
talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
In the spirit of Simon Dodd's edits, I have removed the detailed statements/updates about the
College Prowler company and moved them to the main article. I am not a very experienced editor, particularly on this kind of policy matter, but Simon's further comments about coatracking effectively summarize a big part of my concern. Finding out about the recent questionable Facebook-squatting tactics used by that company didn't make me feel any better. Still, I understand the logic of keeping the article as now edited and reduced.--
Shorn again (
talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Exceedingly weak keep. There are two issues bearing on deletion here. First, notability.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria sets the threshold as coverage as a subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There seem to be enough cites in the article meeting those criteria to cross the threshold. Second, the autobiographical aspect. While
WP:COI and
WP:AUTO strongly discourage doing that, as I understand them, they do not prohibit it, and it isn't an independently sufficient reason for deletion at
WP:DEL#REASON. Although the marginal notability and the autobiograpy aspect do tend to amplify one another (
WP:DEL#REASON is expressly non-exhaustive), I lean very slightly towards retention. The other problems with the article can be dealt with through editing the article rather than deleting it.- Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW } 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I'm persuaded by Simon Dodd's very cogent reasoning.--
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: I've edited the article to strip out a lot of the autobiographical fluff. - Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW } 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Addenda: There could have been a third argument for deletion based on
Wikipedia:CSD#General no. 11, to the extent that the article could be thought a species of
coatrack for "promot[ing]" this persons's company. My subsequent edits have, I believe, mooted that argument. - Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW } 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
KeepThe accomplishments are notable and documented. The present state of the article seems almost acceptable. (The picture of herself several decades ago could well be considered irrelevant to an encyclopedic purpose., just as much as a baby picture would be). What we do with spammy articles is remove the spam. DGG (
talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Apparently Simon Dodd's saved it. In view of the nominator's comments above I now recommend speedy keep under
WP:SK ground 1.--
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 22:06, 30 January 2009 (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.
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.
Based on edit history and photo image credits, this article appears to be largely, if not entirely, self-generated by the subject. Beyond this, the style is that of a promotional piece or advertisement. Although the author has provided references for herself, seems to be non-notable. Related resume-like article for
Joey Rahimi was previously agreed to be deleted on similar grounds.
Shorn again (
talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
In the spirit of Simon Dodd's edits, I have removed the detailed statements/updates about the
College Prowler company and moved them to the main article. I am not a very experienced editor, particularly on this kind of policy matter, but Simon's further comments about coatracking effectively summarize a big part of my concern. Finding out about the recent questionable Facebook-squatting tactics used by that company didn't make me feel any better. Still, I understand the logic of keeping the article as now edited and reduced.--
Shorn again (
talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Exceedingly weak keep. There are two issues bearing on deletion here. First, notability.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria sets the threshold as coverage as a subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There seem to be enough cites in the article meeting those criteria to cross the threshold. Second, the autobiographical aspect. While
WP:COI and
WP:AUTO strongly discourage doing that, as I understand them, they do not prohibit it, and it isn't an independently sufficient reason for deletion at
WP:DEL#REASON. Although the marginal notability and the autobiograpy aspect do tend to amplify one another (
WP:DEL#REASON is expressly non-exhaustive), I lean very slightly towards retention. The other problems with the article can be dealt with through editing the article rather than deleting it.- Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW } 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I'm persuaded by Simon Dodd's very cogent reasoning.--
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: I've edited the article to strip out a lot of the autobiographical fluff. - Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW } 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Addenda: There could have been a third argument for deletion based on
Wikipedia:CSD#General no. 11, to the extent that the article could be thought a species of
coatrack for "promot[ing]" this persons's company. My subsequent edits have, I believe, mooted that argument. - Simon Dodd {
U·
T·
C·
WP:LAW } 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
KeepThe accomplishments are notable and documented. The present state of the article seems almost acceptable. (The picture of herself several decades ago could well be considered irrelevant to an encyclopedic purpose., just as much as a baby picture would be). What we do with spammy articles is remove the spam. DGG (
talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Apparently Simon Dodd's saved it. In view of the nominator's comments above I now recommend speedy keep under
WP:SK ground 1.--
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 22:06, 30 January 2009 (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.