Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Fitzpatrick


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  13:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Dawn Fitzpatrick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional and non notable, written by now-banned paid editor. Placement on PR-based lists of important people is not notability Possible G11. The overall presentation would have been suitable for her bio on the firm's web site, but not an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- As DGG knows well, the state of the sources in the article is not relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:ARTN.  In any case, this woman passes WP:GNG easily.  There's one NYT source already cited in the article.  Here's another one.  The Bloomberg sources in the article are all WP:RS.  We also have American Banker, Business Insider, Forbes, which calls her "One Of Wall Street's Most Prominent Women," and so on.  As I said, a clear pass of WP:GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, that second NYT article is enough for notability, but the article remains essentially promotional, mostly relying on promotional sources, and that's a violation our basic principle of NOT ADVOCACY. If it's intended as promotionalism , the notability  doesn't even come into it. And given the nature of the editors other work here, this is undoubtedly also paid editing with the necessary declarations.  DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but WP:NOTADVOCATE is about article content. The fact that the tone and most of the content is promotional is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to hack it down to a stub and start again.  192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Our practice has consistently been to delete when the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without fundamental rewriting beyond normal editing, as compared with when it is a clearly removable sentence or two. The overall tone here is such that fundamental rewriting would be necessary. Furthermore, the article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor-- though the specific statement in the TOU did not go into effect until 204, this was always contrary to our COI policy.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe anyone is talking about how promotional this article is. Bloomburg, American Banker and the WSJ are reliable sources. The article doesn't use puffery to describe her career. Please,, quote specific passages that you think are promotional. Also explain how the sources are also promotional. Please ping me, as I don't watch every AfD. Thanks.


 * Delete I absolutely agree. I think it would need substantial work to bring it to order and that is work that shouldn't have to be done. It goes beyond what is expected of a volunteer, in their normal course of work. It reads like an About Us page on a company site, and is of zero value, except as promotion. scope_creep (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. In addition, if anyone still thinks the words are "promotional in tone," I guarantee that I can rewrite the whole article in under 15 minutes. Too easy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Other sources: Entertainment Close-Up 2015, American Banker 2017, Forbes 2017.


 * Keep per this news search, including multiple dedicated pieces in the New York Times and per Megalibrarygirl rewriting the article in less time than it takes me to cook a chicken madras with pilau rice and two naan. (Yum) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per meeting GNG. I am perplexed that the nomination says that Fitzpatrick is "non notable" and then the nominator later states in the discussion that "yes, that second NYT article is enough for notability". Seems somewhat misleading, especially seeing that the source was already cited... Thank you to the individuals who helped improve the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is a property of the subject not the article. Where better sources and article improvement is possible these should be improved, not the article deleted. Improving articles is the work of volunteers, any work on Wikipedia is beyond what is expected of volunteers - because nothing is expected. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2018 (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.