Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Phillips


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  01:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Lindsay Phillips

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Absolute spammy article with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. SergioM32 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist unless we get additional participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women,  and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  03:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – Article has a lack of WP:INDEPENDENT sources, but I've found some good stuff I'm about to add that I believe meet WP:GNG. TLA  (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources added are a Q&A interview so primary and not independent and the Inc. article which is ok but still much of it is dependent of what she says. The only other source I found is this Business Insider bit but not enough to meet notability.  S0091 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per S0091. The Business Insider piece is maybe an RS source, but at the bottom of the article there is an email to send in your own business/fashion tips to be written about so this could also just be a work of churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2024 (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.