Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Scott


 * 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. 81.237.218.107 's argument is not based in Wikipedia policy.  Sandstein  20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kendra Scott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources for over a year, no substantiation of plausible notability, article repeatedly deleted for blatant advertising and copyright violations —EncMstr (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, and cleanup - It seems there is a chapter about (most likely) her in this book, but the actual content is not accessible. There is a profile and a short interview from Austin Business Journal. After that there are notes about the opening of her store here and here, two short mentions here and here about the launch of a collection on HSN, and three notes about a particular product here here and here, although several of these notes are cookie-cut. I can only judge the quality of the sources so far, but I think notability is barely met. Her jewelry appears on In Style and O, not featured in particular, but mentioned as part of ensembles. While that doesn't seem to help much with notability, it does speak of a certain presence, and fashion designers in particular are prone to inherit notability from their products, as they effectively make a brand out of their names. All in all, a weak keep, and a definite cleanup for WP:SPAM - patitomr (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck out a duplicate reference. I don't have the link that was supposed to go there anymore. It was a similar piece also from www.bizjournals.com - patitomr - frankieMR (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet checked any other sources, do won't give a "keep" or "delete" opinion, but I must point out that the book cited in the first sentence of the comment above is published by Books, LLC, which takes its content from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, you sunk my battleship - frankieMR (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Austin deletion discussions. —EncMstr (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete: The bizjournals.com hits look reliable enough, but it's a red flag for me when all the legit sources someone can come up with are the local news variety - Austin, in this case. If she's notable, where are the national sources?  The luxist and dexigner items look like press releases to me.  Throw in the fact that the article has been recreated several times without credible sources to save the article from re-deletion and this one is too iffy for me.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 16:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When considering everything available,information,etc etc.. I would recommend Keep and a rewrite. and update of the article.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Arguments for keep are based somehow on the five pillars.  You haven't provided any reason at all, though a rewrite and update of the article are good suggestions—if notability can be established.  —EncMstr (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability hasn't been established. It looks like an advert for a small operation/company. Szzuk (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (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.