Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Marquit

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Marquit

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

NOTE: My vote is neutral, I am not voting "keep" or "delete." I just feel we need to discuss this article for possible violations. I genuinely didn't want to flag this up, but I do have concerns about the article. It is primarily an autobiography/self promotion, and the sourcing - with the exception of the first New York Times link (unfortunately a little weak as a standalone source) - is either unacceptable as sourcing (magazine covers, links to YouTube videos, or dead links that no longer appear to go anywhere helpful) My main concern is that the sole editor appears to be the subject of the article. I believe that the subject MAY be able to pass notability, and do see a few possible RS (although not an awful lot) on a search that would support her having an article (just not writing her own) but as it currently stands, the article is wall-to-wall self-promotion and stuff that is reliant on the subject's personal knowledge/unsourced, so my question is - is it so bad that we need to junk the existing article and start over again? Please note that I already advised the creator of the autobiography issues on her talk page and have allowed it to stand for almost a year to see whether there would be any interest. I'm happy to edit the article if the consensus is to keep and improve, and happy to recreate it more appropriately if the consensus is to delete - but sometimes I feel like the only fashion-related editor who isn't focused on models, sexy clothing, or pageants and it gets a bit overwhelming... Mabalu (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is not enough to establish that Marquit's work is notable or giving her notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Once again, we are confusing article quality with notability. The article is poorly written, poorly formatted and so on, but the New York Times coverage alone is significant, and the CFDA honor is significant in the industry. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to see more than one NYT source, and what's actually in the coverage is quite slight - I did do a search for other NYT coverage and this seemed to be the only non-advertorial coverage. Agree about the honour, but there need to be more sources and these don't seen very easy to come by.... Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's some decent coverage in The Examiner (a poor source), a small note in NY Mag and a bit more info here. Pburka (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 8 July 2016 (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.