Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Kelsall


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Harriet Kelsall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I could not establish that this meets WP:Notability Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -Absolutely nothing to be found except for advertisements regarding the store and their product. Nothing to prove WP:Notability and I would think this would fall directly in the path of WP:Advertisement. The article has been there long enough that if it were notable someone surely would have expanded it and properly sourced it by now.--Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and the above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

How about: http://faircloughhall.co.uk/blog/congratulations-to-harriet-kelsall-for-becoming-every-womans-woman-of-the-year/ http://www.thenextwomen.com/2012/03/14/2011-specsavers-everywoman-retail-woman-year-harriet-kelsall-founder-design-director-harr http://www.workyourway.co.uk/harriet-kelsall-award-winning-jeweller/ http://www.jewelleryfocus.co.uk/8361-harriet-kelsall-announces-winner-of-bespoke-jewellery-design-competition http://joannedewberry.co.uk/day-in-the-life-of/day-in-the-life-of-harriet-kelsall/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.120.130 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is only one of those articles that really speaks about what it is she does that would make her somewhat notable and the rest of them read like advertisements for her product. I strongly feel that for the length of time this article has been allowed to stay active surely there would have been more written about her as a person and designer that would sustain this article and remove it from the deletion floor. We must also understand that this article is written as a biography or as we refer to it here a WP:BLP and this article fails several of the guidelines to maintain its inclusion. So, I maintain my strong delete recommendation and who knows there may come a time where she will rise to the notability standards required for inclusion. There is nothing personal here, it is just a matter of procedure. This may also fall under WP:TOOSOON in which there may come a time when she does have more written about her she may satisfy our notability requirements.--Canyouhearmenow 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and Canyouhearmenow's reasoning. AlanS (talk)


 * I've updated her profile with more information - it was very out of date. There are hundreds of articles in the UK press about Harriet Kelsall and her significant contribution to the UK jewelry industry and I've included a few as better citations. The thing is, that in reality she really is one of most significant and influential jewelry designers in the UK at the moment so she shouldn't really be deleted, it was just that her biography was not updated! --TJA135 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, though I would urge the closing admin (if the consensus is 'delete') to consider moving this to draft space so it could be re-written about her company, which she founded in 1998 (a brief biog could be included). The company, Harriet kelsall Jewellery Design, is in fact the recipient of most of these accolades and recognition (for example the lead designer, not Kelsall, turned up to collect the 2011 award). Kelsall herself had a major write-up in the Financial Times, but it looks like she was also a columnist at the time so they were plugging their own writers. Coverage is coverage all the same, particularly in a very major newspaper. It's a close call for me - she's won a Woman of the Year award and been given the Freedom of the City of London, which not every designer can claim! Sionk (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

She's not a columnist for the Financial Times and never has been. There have been other articles in major UK newspapers (the Telegraph, Times Educational Supplement, Woman's Own Magazine and so on) but they aren't not cited as urls to them no longer seem to exist. The business is only 30 people so really Harriet Kelsall and Harriet Kelsall Jewellery Design are pretty much one and the same. Harriet Kelsall collected all her own awards apart from a UK Jewellery Award in 2013 because she was having heart surgery at the time!! The point I'm trying to make is that if you are going to include any UK jewellery designers in Wikipedia the only real measure of significance (beyond their success in selling jewellery!) is whether they've won major things like a UK Jewellery Awards (the jewellery "Oscars"), been involved in major initiatives (like the launch of Fairtrade gold) and influence the industry by sitting on industry committees like the British Jeweller's Association or the Creative and Cultural Skills Academy. --TJA135 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. She was certainly the featured 'expert' in the "Ask the Experts" column that week, though I agree it looks like she wasn't the author of the column. Sionk (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, no matter how much we want to jockey this article I still do not believe it meets its purpose. First of all most of the information out there is about her company and her winning awards for the "Company" which would make me believe that the company should have the article and not her. Second, I feel that her or her agent is the one pushing this which would make most of the unsourced material WP:OR. if anything we need to merge this into an article about the company and not her as an individual because all the press material i can find so far speaks of nothing more than her winning this award. If she is truly notable don't you think we would find more than that? Canyouhearmenow 17:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're conceding there may be some notability here. Your "strong delete" argument made no sense when the article clearly lists a two personal awards (Woman of the Year/Freedom of the City of London) and news coverage. The COI claims seem purely speculative - there are actually people keenly interested in jewellery and fashion, you know. Sionk (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not conceding anything. I stand by my strong delete and still feel the article needs to be deleted. This is nothing personal, just simply guidelines. The sources are very sparse and limited at best. It simply talks about her winning an award. It in no way leads to notability that requires an article here on Wikipedia. Not to say that in time she would reach inclusion worthiness but at this point I personally feel that it is WP:TOOSOON--Canyouhearmenow 02:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think any suggestion of coi is specuative, but the tone of this article, plus the fact that its creator is a WP:SPA and in title it has three editors who have edited this article and no others - including [[User:TJA135, who has voted 'keep' here. It's speculative, but it's unusual and based on previous experience, suspicious.
 * Delete as per nom's rationale. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable; the one FT piece is the only source in her favor, but its run of the mill type stuff, otherwise this is more of a linked in resume for a competent professional, not a wikipedia page.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:57, 25 August 2014 (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.