Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Qualls


 * 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 keep. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding of why we use the words: policy and guideline. Having an article is decided by whether it is notable or not, the content of the article is then held to our other policies and guidelines (such as WP:NOT). The key thing here is that an article's retention falls under WP:GNG. While WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT are "policies", that does not mean that they hold some form of unseen authority over all guidelines. The term policy is simply used to denote that it is a less bendable rule, when compared to a guideline.

This article's subject is found by the consensus to be notable enough for inclusion, regardless of its current WP:PROMO issues. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Qualls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think this person is particularly notable. There's a brief write-up in Forbes, but even then, it just says she's the owner of a website that was claimed to get 7 million hits per month in 2009. She "reportedly received an offer (from an undisclosed buyer) for $1.5 million, but turned it down." The site in question hasn't been updated since 2015. I Googled her but can't find anything else that she appears to have done. My inclination is delete but the Forbes mention makes it borderline enough for me to list this here instead of PROD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete At best we have one event coverage, not sustained coverage to show true notability. When we open an article on a 26-year-old by calling her a girl, something is seriously out of line, the best indication is that she almost was notable in 2008 but did not keep it up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Covered in numerous books including:
 * Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory
 * Women and Leadership
 * Risky Business: Taking and Managing Risks in Library Services for Teens
 * Difficult Dialogues about Twenty-First-Century Girls
 * Social Networking: The Ultimate Teen Guide
 * Introduction to Project Management
 * The Open Brand: When Push Comes to Pull in a Web-Made World
 * Creativity, Law and Entrepreneurship
 * Notability does not expire and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Brief mention in the Washington Post. ABC news gives her detailed coverage.  Other sources to look through.    D r e a m Focus  12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added additional reliable sources and fixed up the article. A lot of news sources felt her achievements notable enough to mention.   D r e a m Focus  12:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added two additional sources. I believe WP:BASIC is met. --joe deckertalk 17:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's still a clear business PR listing here which violates our policy WP:NOT and that alone is enough for deletion, but then the fact the article sources are simply trivial business announcements, listings, mentions, quotes and all similar, also violates our policies since it emphasizes a business listing; the sources above are still trivial, especially in considerations of our policies, and the comment above says "a brief mention" hence not substantial, the other one is simply part of the tech blog section (also, with this said, the current article sources are tech-focused publications too), and WP:BASIC is naturally not policy, so it's not a guaranteed lifesaver. This article has clear tones of a personal LinkedIn page because it only focuses with what she herself would advertise to clients and that is always enough for deletion, regardless of what could be said. SwisterTwister   talk  23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the sources are not the indepth reliable source coverage we require for articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The FastCompany article is an in-depth profile from a reliable print source. Combined with the other coverage over the 7 years between 2007 and 2014, there is clear notability. The current version is not promotional, is well-sourced, and meets WP:GNG.  Jim Miller  See me 16:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not policy, however, so what policy-basis is there to support keeping advertising? Because even WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT all state we never compromise with PR hosting. SwisterTwister   talk  21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the articles brought to the table in the arguments above. I also disagree with the argument above that "This article has clear tones of a personal LinkedIn page because it only focuses with what she herself would advertise to clients and that is always enough for deletion, regardless of what could be said." I personally don't see the usefulness of WP:TNT when a quick chopping to stub size would suffice perfectly fine, only take a few extra minutes, and leaves the topic in place so that less-experienced editors like IPs can add to it over time, without the hurdle of page creation. Yvarta (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What policy are you suggesting we use here? Because the comment below in fact compares the article itself to her LinkedIn and the fact it was sourced by her own job listing. This article itself shows the blatant consistency in advertising what she advertises to clients which violates our policy WP:NOT, which controls any advertising-removal. "leaves the topic in place so that less-experienced editors like IPs can add to it over time" is not supported by any of our policies given those "less-experienced editors" would in fact be clear COI advertisers. SwisterTwister   talk  21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG as she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not policy, and policies are what control our articles especially when it comes to controversial subjects as these. Now, all significant coverage listed wouldn't even satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH since it's all business announcements, mentions, interviews, etc. WP:NOT explicitly is the one controlling and deleting such advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. She was noteworthy and still stands out as an accomplished young person. She's fallen off the radar, but there seems to be a good explanation. She went on to found SickNotDead, publish about her autoimmune disease, and appears to be editor-in-chief of a social enterprise of some sort (Lucky Soul), while also doing medical research studies at a major university, if her LinkedIn is for real. She has apparently lost her home, business and much of her health, according to an article she apparently posted on Medium. Also think it's worth noting these teen millionaires of the Wild West of the Internet for future reference. Westendgirl (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What policy are you suggesting we keep this? Because WP:NOT is what actually encourages deletion when this is still clear PR, and we've never accepted articles by the sole basis of "still stands out as an accomplished young person", not even our simplest standards would accept it. "her LinkedIn is for real" wouldn't even satisfy WP:RS since it's her own website. Also, "worth noting these teen millionaires" is not an applicable criteria in any of our standards or policies, so it's never been an inherited factor. So, WP:NOT itself says "Wikipedia is not a business webhost or LinkedIn". SwisterTwister   talk  21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was basing the keep on prior media. Since someone above questioned why she had disappeared, I was just noting that there seems to be a possible explanation, not an encyclopedic explanation. Westendgirl (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete PR does not fall under the criterion for reliable sources. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:58, 8 February 2017 (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.