Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Denis-Smith


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dana Denis-Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure why this individual is supposed to be notable: she is basically a lawyer with a couple of small-scale initiatives to her name. (As an aside, Obelisk Legal Support Solutions and First 100 Years should likely also be probed for notability.) The sourcing doesn't hold up, either: we have lots of links to the subject's own foundation and an article she's written, plus a couple of softball interviews/puff pieces on websites of marginal relevance. - Biruitorul Talk 19:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I found this in Harpers Bazaar, this in Legal Week, this in the London Times, this in the Financial Times, and there are probably others. None of these are particularly substantial on their own, but I'm going to !vote a weak keep based on the fact that so many publications think that the subject is worthy of note. JMWt (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the authors of this article, I think that this individual is notable because they are the owner of a rapidly expanding business and also involved in a lot of innovative projects, as the business grows, they will have more online presence. This article is also worth keeping because not only does it offer additional information for those who need it but also this is a platform which is accessible by the public and interviewers meaning they don't have to contact this individual directly to ask basic questions. I understand this article needs improvement, but it is my first article and constantly under construction although it would be really helpful if a more experienced user helped with the editing, and things such as referencing. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimahb12 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but none of that is a reason for keeping an article on wikipedia. The criteria here under the WP:GNG is existing significant coverage in independent secondary sources.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a way to answer basic questions about an individual as it is WP:NOTCV.  If that is important, the service the person in question is looking for is a blog or website host. JMWt (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but that's not exactly what I meant, what I wanted to stress is that I've seen and had multiple requests for this subject's article, and there are secondary sources, but it'll take a bit of researching to get those into place, I know at the moment the page seems and looks unstable, but it's currently under construction and am always looking to make improvements,  thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.112 (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to meet notability guidelines and lacks adequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as there's some coverage but nothing suggests a currently solid article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep I agree with  that there are sources out there noticing her, so while one source doesn't have the single depth of coverage, many sources noticing her and interviewing her do lend towards notability. A search on Google Scholar also pulls up publications and citations for her. The article needs work though and adding any sources found will help. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I can see nothing indicating required notability as per WP:GNG or WP:Bio. Maybe some time in draftspace will make this admissable -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 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.