Talk:Charlie Craggs

Notability
Self publishing online writer, no secondary sources confirming their notability and the background sources and info seemed to be unverifiable GavinMansfield (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I recommended page deletion GavinMansfield (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the above are incorrect. Replying in detail at your talk page. Capewearer (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is now well sourced with reliable, secondary sources. She's not self-published. Everything in the article is now verifiable. Capewearer (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Self publicity?
The only content in the article is publicising the subject. It reads as a brief CV and, whilst possibly a useful reference for a job application, it contains almost no other information about the subject, such as would be normal in an encyclopaedia entry.

Publicity articles such as this adversely affect Wikipedia's standing as a potential reference work.

Having followed up the few links and the material to which they lead this is starting to look even more like a hollow self-publicity effort.

One link turns out to be to a web site created as an undergraduate fashion college project (described as a 'campaign') which has had no further content added in the years since creation. It is about nail fashion. Another is about a published 'book', which is a short assemblage of letters written by other people with little editorial input. The article that mentions the book appears to be potentially by a self-publicity accomplice, whose main other achievement seems to be an Instagram account.

There is no other biographical material, such as early life, education, employment, no date of birth, no personal section, family / relationships, etc.

This Wikipedia article fits neatly into the pattern of creating a minor set of self-referencing material as an act of publicity, probably originally a 'clever idea' for an undergraduate project. There appears to be no notable achievement otherwise. This really is an example of using a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia for personal ends.

Website down
The website link leads to the domain host. If not temporary I suggest removing the link from the page. --89.139.132.207 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed as it is down, yes—feel free to do this yourself in future. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)