Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porscia Yeganeh


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Porscia Yeganeh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable person -- having checked via findsources it is clear there is no basis for notability here, no way to turn this into a properly sourced article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough volume of work to support a claim of notability. The article outlines this volume quite well. There isn't one source that shouts notability but there are a number that make the case to a reasonable degree. Stormbay (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify which of the sources currently in use meets WP:RS? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost all of the sources here are completely unreliable crap, being mostly links to the commerce websites of clothing store chains, photography blogs and/or primary sources. There may be enough "volume of work" to support a claim of notability, but there aren't enough sources to support it — and the sourcing, not the sheer volume of raw unsourced or poorly sourced content, is what carries the day in the end. I'm willing to reconsider this if real reliable sources start showing up, but right now, as currently written, it's a big fat delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep while this article may need work, I think Porscia is both notable and has credible sources. My addition to the page 2-3 days ago was trying to improve the article and provide potential references for other users to potentially use. To address the problem for credible sources, I can see a number of articles created by credible authors Flare Magazine, Afro News Canada (more information about this on Porscia Yeganeh talkpage), Rockstar Weekly, Reach Magazine Canada] and also Milanice. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — JP22Wiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For the record: the Flare and Reach references are to very brief blog entries which do little more than mention her name; Rockstar Weekly is a link to a single photo, not to any real referenceable content at all; AfroNews is marginally better than the previous ones but still pretty slim; and Milanice could potentially support an article about her company, but fails to provide significant enough information to properly support a biographical article about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In terms of content this is a fair point. Looking at the afro news article in particular this does discuss her work and some of her early life, so surely this can come under the bracket of a reliable reference? In terms of finding other sources, I have read on the talk page and seen there is a book about her, which I put under further reading. I am trying to source a copy of this, as I believe this might hold some credible information in it. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Then the article should focus on the company with a minimal biography of Yeganeh. Incidentally, I have been emailed off Wikipedia by the subject of the article, assuring me that she is notable and drawing my attention to the aforementioned book (which apparently was "without my authorization" and the publishers are "being sued"). As she is reading this, may I direct her to WP:CONFLICT - she ought not to be editing her own article! Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cautious delete/comment - Couldn't find anything much on a Google last night. If credible sources come to light, then all well and good. The article does appear to be almost exclusively edited by its subject(using at least 3 IDs) or by people closely associated with her, which isn't good practice. However, I have NFD'd the Barbie image files as they violate copyright law (the picture of doll clothes off a doll I don't think violates any copyright). (see COM:VPC#Dimension of derivative works Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – I come to the same conclusions as Nomoskedasticity and Bearcat. The sources there now are mostly unusable, and they don't actually support much of a biography anyway. The subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, from what I could find. She doesn't approach the higher bars at WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – This is an observation, but many of the comments made, say that if more reliable sources came along they would reconsider. This hints to me (I'm not putting words in mouths so correct me if I'm wrong) that this article is notable, or on the verge of. If this article was to be cut back to its bare minimum, leaving only content referenced from & two articles from (and maybe others) is everyone agreed this might be acceptable? I am willing to make these changes today should anyone agree. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on these sources, I think you'd be far better off trying to write and source an article about her company, instead of a biographical article about her as an individual. The sources just don't support much in the way of personal information about her; the ones that are useable are pretty clearly about the company rather than her as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even the Reach article titled Designer Focus: Meet the talented fashionista Porscia Yeganeh?  That kinda sounds like its about her, which means she's been in Reach more than once...   Th e S te ve   04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article itself demonstrates the subject does not meet the notability tests (above) when it resorts to attempts to inflate the subject's significance by the loosest of associations (for example, "The store carried a number of signature designer labels including Calvin Klein, Kenneth Cole & Tommy Hilfiger", "This relationship was the beginning of the startup journey where many of the signature fashion designers are based, including Prada, Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana"). The sources cited are poor evidence of notability; certainly the Afro News article reads as promotional rather than reporting. Of course the subject has a duty to her company to promote herself, and it has been suggested that some recent development of this article was commissioned by her or her company (see halfway through WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746). This would put the threat to sue a book's publisher in an odd light, as that book is nothing but a print-on-demand collation of Wikipedia articles (see Books_LLC) that if it ever was printed would contain this very article. Is there a suggestion that this article needs her "authorisation"? NebY (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at afro news article you've discussed, this isn't judging the writing style of Afro News, surely its more important if it is a credible source? As discussed on Porscia's talk page, this newspaper was established back in 1984. Again surely this article can be built around the facts on the Afro News Article. However the notability discussion may still remain. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete (amending earlier and now striken out 'cautious delete' vote to a more definite decision) after careful consideration. I'm done with this debate now. Mabalu (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep while some good points have been raised, I do feel this article could be rewritten around two articles. Due to the work carried out in her field (which is summarised here), I feel she is also notable. Also I must mention that the article was created nearly 4 years ago, and we are only now discussing its notability? Personally I think it falls into this category, and should therefore remain as an article in some form. JP22Wiki (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've already !voted above; you can add comments, but not an additional !vote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the GNG based on sources given in the article, particularly the 2 magazines, which are actually about her.  Th e S te ve   11:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  22:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete Notability is established in relation to the sources presented. Sources are not notable for her, could make a minor case for her company.GuzzyG (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bearcat's analysis above of the sources shows that they fail to establish notability. Would you perhaps like to try to show why his analysis is wrong?  You could address the points that some of them are brief blog entries, another simply contains a photo -- etc.  These "keep" !votes are remarkably weak.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry i must have skimmed over that, recanting my !keep vote and changing it to a !delete vote.GuzzyG (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best of the lot is Afronews which is a community paper.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete borderline notability at best, with borderline references, and a highly promotional article--look at that last paragraph. almost a G11.  DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 5 June 2012 (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.