Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie The Welder


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Barbie The Welder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Anon's draft recently moved to mainspace by User:Ritchie333 who noted "probably not notable but there's a DYK hook in here somewhere". Well, the problem is that while the article makes for a cute hook, if it's not notable, it can hardly be DYKed. And I am afraid this fails WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage outside a few snippets in local/niche magazine, ditto for coverage by a local TV station (WENY-TV), no awards, few minor exhibitions. Not all artists are notable, so at best this seems like WP:TOOSOON. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Promotional language can be seen.(WP:PROMO)-- PA TH  SL OP U  14:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * has the promo been removed? seems ok to me Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - whilst some sources may have been added since the proposal was made, there seems to be enough indepth coverage in reliable third party sources to establish notability - carmen electrode, snips magazine, miller, stitcher, WENY, welding source etc. i found another interview very easily (and added it). Mujinga (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe she squeaks through on GNG. National magazine coverage and two TV segments a year apart. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete- This fails WP:GNG as well as NCREATIVE by a few miles or so. Nothing apart from the AWS video. There's a niche magazine (which are almost always willing to publish stuff for pay and quality control is very low), a few paragraphs in a local source (which covers hundreds of women in a similar fashion, from quick glances), a random podcast, two blogs, a PR page by a welding equipment manufacturer and her own website. Ritchie333 and DYK need to be separated for some time, in light the greater good. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That hardly seems fair. You decided to redirect another of Ritchie's DYK candidates. You find the sources of this article inadequate (and appear to have missed the two TV sources). On the basis of those two personal opinions you state that Ritchie should be kept away from DYK. Thank you for your opinion. Next! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , probably not notable but there's a DYK hook in here somewhere is a ridiculous reason to cross-space shoddy articles and I can move about a few hundred drafts, if I went by such a criteria.
 * I did not decide to redirect WPT of my own whims; there existed a consensus about the action which went unchallenged by either of the involved people, despite ample notifications.
 * I missed to mention those two sources in my comment, apologies. The ~8 minutes of coverage across the two local channels hardly changes my stance. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I saw the draft>Article space request at WIR and thought she would not be notable, but it got published in any case. There is indeed some coverage, but I cannot get away from the perception that the article is promotion and not imparting any useful information, and we are not here for that. It's basically an article on someone who welds and had published two DIY books, and had a few articles written about her. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes indeed inspiration blueprint seems self-published, but horseshoe crafts is on Simon & Schuster (link) on Racehorse Publishing under Skyhorse Publishing, which i don't think is self-publishing. Overall, it's an interesting case this, kind of on the edge. Mujinga (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I saw the draft>Article space request at WIR and thought she would not be notable, but it got published in any case. There is indeed some coverage, but I cannot get away from the perception that the article is promotion and not imparting any useful information, and we are not here for that. It's basically an article on someone who welds and had published two DIY books, and had a few articles written about her. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes indeed inspiration blueprint seems self-published, but horseshoe crafts is on Simon & Schuster (link) on Racehorse Publishing under Skyhorse Publishing, which i don't think is self-publishing. Overall, it's an interesting case this, kind of on the edge. Mujinga (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the sourcing is adequate. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Squeaks past on the GNG. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, marginally. As stated above, I declined a G13 on this draft, thinking it might be possible to expand to mainspace standards, but was sceptical that it was possible. After rewriting the article, removing most of the promotional text and finding additional sources, I concluded there was just enough for it to meet WP:GNG and moved it into mainspace. (Note the diff given above by Piotrus with the comment "probably not notable" was when I declined the G13, leaving it in draft, not when I moved it to mainspace which was after the rewrite). The litmus test I use for all articles is "can a neutral and uninvolved editor rewrite this past stub standards using independent and trustworthy source material", and that's what happened here. The book deal and evidence of sponsorship also helps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:13, 20 May 2019 (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.