Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Whelan


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Melanie Whelan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As usual in this field, every reference here is PR. What makes a good Press agent is the ability to get plausible sounding stories in major publications. I hope we're not as easily fooled as the conventional media.  DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I can see her as a sub-section or an few lines in the SoulCyle article, not notable on her own. Oaktree b (talk)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - probably just enough to warrant an article. She was featured on BBC News not too long ago. I would say this article isn't PR and the circumstances of her departure from SoulCycle seems to be controversial and, again, not PR as they don't paint her in a good light (see just one example). She has featured in many leading publications including Financial Times, Vogue and New York Magazine. She is also receiving coverage after stepping down from CEO, such as this. Spiderone  16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: there's plenty of WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. I'm not sure what the nom means by "in this field" (women in business?) and I don't see an issue with the sources that have been presented in the existing article (Baltimore Sun, CNN, Forbes, etc.) or above by Spiderone as being PR-like. The article should be updated to reflect her ouster from SoulCycle. This certainly doesn't look like PR, for example. Nor does this. Marquardtika (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "In this field" means articles on executives of organizations, both commercial and noncommercial. I try to deal myself primarily with the ones from educational institutions, where the articles on newly appointed presidents are 90% coi, and about 95% promotional, because even the non-coi editors tend to write according to what they see here. There are many more such articles for heads of commercial organizations, and I can't deal with them all, so I concentrate on the worst, and the ones written in conjuction with articles on the firms. Currently most of such articles are about men, but as women increase their share of the roles as ought to be the case, there is no reason to expect any the less promotionalism.    DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the sources in the article and linked above. New York Times, CNN, BBC ... these are not the kind of sources you can just decide are PR because of the field of the subject. FWIW not opposed to a Merge, either, since the coverage all seems connected to SoulCycle. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable C-level employee. She's worked here, and here, and here. Almost seems to be a Linkedin summary Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have already said delete, above. Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Not a very complete article, but she appears to have a reasonable amount of coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep agree per above. VocalIndia (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2020 (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.