Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syl Tang (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ignoring the extensive socking, clear consensus to delete, as failing WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Syl Tang
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising for her new book, which is so far in only 6 libraries. The only possibly RS, the NYT article, is not about her; it's about personal shoppers, and she is included in it as one client.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom's BEFORE work already shows there's no passing claim of notability and no acceptable RS about the subject. I would just add that the creator was a SPA whose 3rd edit was starting this article. It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to keep WP from drifting toward being a worldwide directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. The list of articles is not independent and blogs are not reliable sources. The Jewelry Association award is not notable. Even though the NYT article is not about her, it does provide more than trivial coverage, so it could contribute towards meeting WP:GNG but it is clearly not enough. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is RS from Newsweek and New York Magazine. I have edited the Hipguide page before though it has been awhile. There are formatting issues for sure but not sure where you got the idea that she is a professional press agent per your other nom - she appears to be a Financial Times journalist. That RS goes to dozens of articles. Arabbitortwo (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Arabbitortwo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Plenty of GNG - page just needs to be build out. Tang is misidentied in two of the delete noms. Bluebrown321 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Bluebrown321 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep All issues remarked have been addressed - plenty of GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrypack1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)  — Kerrypack1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: Was leaning weak keep until I noticed the above three accounts appear to be sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts.  We appear to have possible paid editing here.   Montanabw (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock puppet - I was a contrib 6 years ago and happened to catch this since pages are related/nominated on same day - see History of the other page. The scope of this Afd should be limited to actual content of the pages frankly, not accusatory, which does not make new contributors want to keep editing. On the merit of the page itself, has anyone actually looked at it? It was up for less than a week and now passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. I think we should keep and allow time for editing because it meets WP: BIO and WP:BASIC. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Also WP:JOURNALIST. Maybe because I'm new to this, I just read the rules-- WP:GNG and related. Arabbitortwo (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * KeepWP:BEFORE confirms C. that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. This was also recently created - two days before nominating for deletion? Should have allowed contribs more time to develop the article. Failing that, would have been good to first try first raising concerns on the article's talk page such that readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. <- this exactly from WP:BEFORE. Further, both this and the other linked proposed deletion now have substantial RS. Yet, you persist. Gladpiefelix (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Gladpiefelix (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The SPAs just keep comin'. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment that an article passes G11 because it is in theory fixable does not imply we should keep it at AfD; G11 is for only the most obvious advertising--the less obvious or challenged ones need to be discussed here--and the stadart is passing WP:NOt and the notability guidelines. The obvious motivation for this article is to serve as promotion for her new book. This can be seen from the face of the article: avance praise for an unpublished book, lists of mentions "appeared in ..." This violates NOT ADVOCACY, so it doesn't matter even if she were notable.  But she is not--the only substantial sources are interviews where she says whatever she wants to--this is not independent journalism, and wherever it appears, it's not a Rs for anything other than that her pr agent got her the interview. That this is  a new article is not a reason to keep it--the sooner we get id of advertising, the better.  And if by any chance her new book is indeed sufficiently importantto meake for ny, someone not connected with her will write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, but isn't that exactly what we are supposed to do? Improve articles? The guidelines at Afd:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

Why wouldn't we just delete the offending line about the book? I had another look at those interviews. Are you under the impression that New York Magazine, Newsweek, Entrepreneur and the Financial Times all do whatever a publicist says. Not sure that is how media works. there was a good Times article about church and state in media. what you are saying goes against FCC regs. You need industry experts to weigh in here, sorry. Otherwise you run the risk that this sounds like three guys in a room who just don't like the fact that a woman is coming out with a book. I can't believe I am spending this much time defending a company I once edited so many years ago but it reads like a pile-on. There are so many pages on Wiki that are about nothing, this is about one of the few women entrepreneurs out there. I had a look at similar companies and you don't hold others, like Thrillist at all to the same standard. Even other female run companies, Brit + Co with much more promotional language and all the Rs is exactly what you think doesn't work here passes muster. Really sounds like a personal vendetta on a person you don't like -- which I'm sure is NOT what you intend -- but that is how it reads. Arabbitortwo (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Took out the promotional line about book, but plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. At worst, repost, as the article is significantly better than at the start of the nomination.  Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite this nomination being attacked by SPAs, the coverage is fundamentally nowhere near in depth enough, even in the newly provided sources. There is almost definitely paid editing here, and we have to also enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show it passing WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:32, 17 September 2017 (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.