Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Cruickshank


 * 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The result was Withdrawn and kept as the current version also seems acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  03:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Cruickshank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Though I'm sure created in GF, this article on a woman who has just launched a multi-level marketing scheme involving make-up does not have the kind-of broad, reliable sourcing necessary to pass BLP, even though at first glace there are a plethora of citations. There are 13 references, grouped roughly as follows: (a) press releases and company websites - 3, (b) non-RS sources like step-up-club.net, wearethecity.com, etc. - 5, (c) very short blurbs announcing promotions or movements in RS - 1, (d) advertorial [article on The Independent is in their "Business Analysis & Features" and on Telegraph in their "Biz Idol" - both paid advertorial sections] - 2, (e) legit profile coverage on The Drum and the small trade rag "Management Today" - 2. Her award as an "Inspiring Fifty" woman is from a non-notable awards scheme that appears to be 1 or 2 years old, has no physical address, and no associated persons (like a board of advisers, etc.) who are themselves notable. LavaBaron (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have made an analysis of the references of the article at this permalink. I am judging Pass/Fail on whether the references verify notability, not on whether they may be used in the article
 * http://www.inspiringfifty.com/50-inspiring-women-list-2015-eu/ passing mention. Is this WP:RS? My view is Fail
 * https://www.myshowcase.com/stylist/nancy_cruickshank WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB and thus of no use in establishing notability. Fail
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/no-handbag-just-the-height-of-web-fashion-860768.html Clear pass
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9745764/How-beauty-site-MyShowcase-creates-entrepreneurs.html Clear pass
 * http://step-up-club.net/2015/07/15/power-chat-nancy-cruickshank/ Not RS, Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
 * http://www.wearethecity.com/inspirational-women-nancy-cruickshank-founder-myshowcase/ Not RS, Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
 * http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/13/nancy-cruickshank-telegraph-media-group Clear pass
 * http://www.onmobile.com/OnMobile%20expands%20Board%20appoints%20Nancy%20Cruickshank%20and%20Bruno%20Ducharme%20as%20Directors PR piece. Fail
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/11/nancy-cruickshank-businesswoman-profile_n_4084269.html Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
 * http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1348301/meet-entrepreneur-helping-hundreds-women-start-own-businesses/ Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
 * http://erisea-mag.com/behind-the-brand-nancy-cruickshank Interview thus WP:PRIMARY Fail
 * http://www.telecitygroup.com/investor-centre/nancy-cruickshank.htm WP:SELFPUB Fail
 * http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/02/15/it-s-massively-fragmented-market-and-still-evolving-fast-nancy-cruickshank-talks interview with editorial. Borderline
 * I feel that there are sufficient references that pass our criteria. I use the following to judge them: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
 * I think the article relies far too heavily on references which do not verify notability, but that is a reason to edit it or to find better references. We have sufficient references that meet our policies to retain the article. Fiddle   Faddle  11:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent and helpful run-down. (I would only disagree on the Independent and Telegraph, since the articles in question are advertorials.) LavaBaron (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we stand, each of us, close to the border, but on different sides of it, over this article. Luckily, neither of us has to make the final call. The two references you criticise but that I do not are best left, I think, to other people's judgement. Fiddle   Faddle  11:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets GNG. Implication that she is an inexperienced entrepreneur is unfounded. WP:BEFORE would have shown RS showing that she has history going back long before current start up, thus notability has not been fleeting. Appreciate the analysis by and also find, ,  showing web coverage going back to 2006. Article could definitely use editing, but notability does not rely on a well-written article nor sources being cited. The guidelines say that sources must exist. Sufficient evidence has been provided to show that RS do exist to confirm her notability. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument has swayed me, SusunW. I may have been narrowing-in on the writing problems with this article you pointed out to the exclusion of sources. I withdraw my "Delete" and am happy to see this AfD closed. LavaBaron (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, SusunW, for pointing-out the writing issues here. I've proposed some basic edits on the article's Talk page I think will eliminate the issues and prevent someone else from erroneously AfD'ing this in the future. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2015 (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.