Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Errett


 * 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. The article is found to be both promotional in nature and lacking in notability, and is therefore unfit for inclusion in this encyclopedia. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Amy Errett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although this at first may seem like an informative and sourced article, it's in fact advertising for a woman whose career and company involvements have been advertising and advertising-motivated at that, therefore there's simply nothing to suggest both genuine substance and guarantees from PR advertising. The articles listed here, as it is, simply consist of published and republished PR information and quotes, and my own searches have found such, one of them was NYT....but it was only a 2013 interview. In every single of these found, it was obvious advertising by either saying "Money acquired for company funding", "She will offer you business advice!", "Here's her life and business story from her own words!" and that was all in 3 pages.

Because it's obvious this article is part of an advertising campaign, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, any named publications or republished advertising be damned, because we're simply not a business listing especially when it's simply to list their chronologically listed business positions as this article shows. There's no genuine improvements from simply adding cosmetics to "make it better" because it would still in fact be an advertisement. SwisterTwister  talk  02:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable PR business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak delete - I am finding material that goes back over her career. I think the way that the introduction is worded and the last couple of sentences in the career section do make it sound very promotional. Another issue is that she's made a dramatic career change, but that success does not appear to be realized yet. The article was created as part of WikiProject Articles for creation.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Based upon 's comments I change it to keep. I didn't think the article was started for promotional reasons, either. I do think, though, that the exclusion of the information in her intro that does make her notable - and the focus on her new project does make it seem promotional. I put a clean-up tag on the article and removed the part in her career section that I thought was a tone issue.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of reliable sources in the article already, including Forbes and SFGate. There are more sources in HighBeam, such as Advocate and Chicago Tribune. As mentioned, there is coverage over time about her as well and it was vetted through the AfC process. If the article seems too promotional in tone to the nominator and those voting delete, it would be better to copyedit or tag the article. AfD is to determine notability, not whether an article is well-written. This article is not promotional enough in tone either, to qualify for any of the arguments there, either. Passes GNG clearly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to address the WP:SPAM and WP:NOT claim more directly. I don't see that in this article. However, all of those kind of links that seem "promotional" could still be pulled out and using Forbes and other RS, there is enough for this article to pass GNG. I think someone wrote this because a successful lesbian CEO is an interesting topic, not for advertising. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since apparently no one else is commenting, I will note that the Keep vote are literally basically saying "Yes, let's accept it as advertising as long as there are sources listed!" The Forbes is in fact at one of their freelancing journalism sections, so it's not genuine news, and it's the mirroring image in everything else, so it shows that when an article has to blatantly overemphasize with this, it shows it's simply overblown attempts at PR hence why WP:NOT applies: We are not a PR webhost or a random advertising business listing, GNG and RS be damned. SwisterTwister   talk  21:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of things.
 * I absolutely was not meaning to say, and never would say, "Yes, let's accept it as advertising as long as there are sources listed!" I am not seeing your point about Forbes. It says that the author is a staff member in the byline and the bio says "I am a New York City-based journalist and staff writer for Forbes Magazine and Forbes.com covering leadership."
 * Her rolling out a new product is not notable - and I don't judge her by that - I am looking at the information found about her career before then. This absolutely isn't a strong "keep" for me, though.
 * Are you saying, then, that if the tone of an article is too promotional, we need to delete it? Fixing it is not an acceptable solution? (By the way, I moved the content with the strongest promotional tone to the talk page - perhaps there is other information there that could be mined for encyclopedic content).
 * There was a request to create this article - vs. someone jumping in and making the article as they thought it needed to be created. I am seeing a minor, but steady interest in the subject of the article, so what is the harm in fixing it and keeping it around?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish I had seen 's comment earlier, . I do not see that the article is PR in any way at all. GNG is passed when a subject has been covered in RS over time. She has that. In my opinion, SwisterTwister, you are arguing RS and GNG be damned because you have decided this article is "promotional" no matter what other editors have shown to be the contrary. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This actually is advertising, and I'm amazed at the option that an article centered around " the product was designed to be an affordable salon-quality product with better ingredients." is encyclopedic information. The additional material is not worth saving either--it's notes about the various boards she's served on, and a list of prior positions, with unprovable claims for her influence in them, The place for this sort of material is Who's who in America or an Alumni magazine.  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -, That may be. I don't have a strong feeling about this one and have waffled once already. For now, I edited the section you were mentioning here.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; The sources are mostly about the companies or are self-published (e.g., the Forbes articles are written by her, but there's no indication she'd pass WP:JOURNALIST) or are PR (at least one of which is literally published on the PR firm's site). The only one with any merit toward WP:GNG/WP:BIO might be the nytimes one; possibly also sfgate's, but those are by no means numerous or indicative of clear notability. It also reads like (and is laid out like) a promotional resume, even with the fluff recently cut out. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The Crazed Beast (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, the sources are not good here and the intention to promote the subject seems to be clear if you read the sources carefully. I also see a lot of them written by her - which doesn't help towards notability. Among the ones in better sources, Sfgate seems to be about a reporter musing about the subject's wedding - with no indication as to why it is significant. (There are loads of reports about interesting local weddings in the newspaper here, but that wouldn't make the subject notable). The only other RS is nytimes but it is an interview and secondary sources are required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2016 (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.