Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Hunt


 * 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) SST  flyer  16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Holly Hunt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being CEO and selling a company is not enough for inclusion here. There is nothing here to really sell the article for inclusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm still deciding how to vote on this. In the meantime, here are two independent, reliable sources not used in the article that provide nontrivial, personal coverage of the subject:
 * Rebb ing  17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebb ing  17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebb ing  17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is sufficient in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. There is enough sourced material from the references in the article and the ones found by (independent and WP:RS) about the subject to write a short verifiable article and it does not violate what Wikipedia is not.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Rebb  ing  20:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Rebb  ing  20:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:NEXIST and Rebbing's sources, above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieari (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * : "It's JUSTNOTNOTABLE" isn't usually accepted as an argument for deletion. Would you care to explain why you believe the subject isn't notable? Did you even look at the available sources before voting? Rebb  ing  14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as the coverage plainly satisfies GNG. In finding the requisite significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, I primarily rely on the December 2014 Wall Street Journal article (cited above) and a March 2016 piece in Architectural Digest:
 * I also find the March 2014 Wall Street Journal interview (cited above) to be modestly significant. A passing mention in 1993 in The Free Lance–Star (a major newspaper in northern Virginia) obviously doesn't count towards coverage but is somewhat probative of the subject's enduring prominence in the design community:
 * Rebb ing  14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebb ing  14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebb ing  14:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete instead as the Architectural Design link is essentially simply advertising and showing her own items; the second link is still not substantial enough for actually establishing substantial independent notability; examining this current article has shown nothing actually suggestive of why and how she has obtained enough substance and information for independent notability. As always, there's no inherited notability from the type of news source it is or who she worked with. The awards themselves include simply localized trivial business awards, none of it comes close to an actual major award. As always, this article itself hints at advertising her exact business and works, something that Wikipedia should not accept at all. Her career section essentially simply contains information about her jobs even including "bought a small showroom in Chicago's Merchandise Mart and changed the name almost a year later, becoming the first....brand has opened 10 more showrooms across the United States, as well as the recent opening of a London showroom" and then concluding how the company was sold. That's essentially all there actually is for this career section, apart from the other sections which contain the said trivial awards, the early life section (which goes as far to include her early jobs) and then the other parts outside of the sections (such as the lead that contains information what her occupation is and what her business is about). The nomination and Delete votes actually contain this itself exactly, in that none of it is significant and none of it ascertains independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm convinced by the sources Rebbing uncovered. The profiles by the Wall Street Journal and the Architectural Digest are substantial and meet the threshold of significant coverage for GNG. To this I add I source that I have found: here is a five page article by the Chicago Tribune which gives details on Hunt's early life and how she built up her business. For those asking what Hunt specifically did to set her business apart, the main points are that she designed furniture with a neutrally-colored palette and fewer decorative details, as opposed to the excessive ornamentation that characterized 1980s furniture, and hiring a French designer, Christian Liaigre, whose furniture made her business very successful. Altamel (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep agreed, the sources are enough to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Chicago Tribune coverage is compelling, referring to Hunt's company as "one of Chicago's most successful woman-owned businesses and one of the most influential furniture/design firms in the country". I believe that's enough of an indication of significance, and sources are satisfactory to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: per variety of WP:SIGCOV sources listed above (and thanks for your research to the editors who uncovered them). Agree that Chicago Trib source is particularly compelling at establishing significance. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 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.