Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Celebrity Source (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   rework into biography of Rita Tateel. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Celebrity Source
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company, fails the GNG going away. I just trimmed out a lot of chaff that was either about the company owner (and didn't mention the subject at all), and several claims that weren't backed up at all by the inline cites. Subject of a previous AfD where two Keep proponents claimed that the sources were of sufficient quality to keep, and I question openly whether or not they actually reviewed the sources (which I just did), and instead did a "Ooo, look, there are sources listed!" Of the only three qualifying sources left, one is a mere incorporation listing, one is a business listing, and one is the company's own website. Seemed to be a coatrack for the owner.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Delete - I see many mentions of the company and some quotes from Rita Tateel, but insufficient sources about the subject. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 16:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for (a) assuming bad faith on the part of the previous "keep" !voters, one of whom was me, and (b) gutting the article by removing every Reliable Source just before nominating it for deletion. Examples of sources that were in the article at the time of the last AfD nomination, but are not there now:
 * a one-paragraph mention in the Wall Street Journal:
 * an interview with the CEO in the LA Times:
 * three paragraphs in the LA Times:
 * one sentence in the New York Times:
 * multiple quotes from Tateel in Variety:
 * The rationale given for deleting all this material was that it was about the CEO, Rita Tateel, rather than specifically about the company (although they are pretty much synonymous, it seems to be a one-woman company). If the argument is that she is notable but her company isn't, then the solution isn't to delete the article; it's to keep it and move it to Rita Tateel. If the article is kept and there is consensus for the move, I will undertake that move and reconstruct the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: Well, first off, you want to move it NOW to Rita Tateel, I've no objections, knock yourself out. Other than that, I wasn't assuming bad faith on the part of anyone.  I assumed sloppy rationales and a failure to look at the sources.  A source that doesn't discuss the subject doesn't meet the GNG, period.  A source that doesn't mention the subject doesn't meet the GNG, period.  (Hell, almost all of those sources just mentioned Tateel's name -- they couldn't support Tateel's notability either.)  I can't imagine how anyone can't wrap their heads around that.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Moving an article during the course of an AfD just muddies the water - and causes problems for the closer. We are here to discuss what to do with this article. Delete it? Keep it? Merge it to something else? Move it to a different title and refocus it? Any of those are valid outcomes of an AfD discussion (which it has often been suggested should be called Articles for Discussion). Consensus will determine the outcome, and whatever action is chosen will be implemented after this discussion is closed. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw these before !voting. They look to either about the CEO with a brief mention of the company or are just a brief mention of the CEO and/or the company. Maybe the CEO should have an article, but this doesn't look like WP:CORPDEPTH to me. Keeping an article about a subject that is not notable because it's going to be changed into an article about a different subject does not make sense to me as an outcome of AfD. The subject is the company here -- that's the notability we're trying to determine. If you would like to create Rita Tateel using the material, you're welcome to do so separately, and then that article can have a separate AfD if someone decides she's not notable. Otherwise you're turning this into a double nomination whereby participants have to assess the notability of both. She may be notable based on those sources, but for the purpose of this discussion, they do not show the company is notable. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It may not make sense to you, but many AfDs close as some form of "subject is not notable, but content is usable at X". Saying we can't discuss the use of content about Rita Tateel at Rita Tateel because this AfD is called "The Celebrity Source" is pure bureaucracy, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  This is a discussion about the content of an article, and that content includes info about Tateel. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of examples of AfDs which were closed as "keep this article called X, but rename it and refocus it to be about Y". Such closures are uncommon but not unheard of. --MelanieN (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see these as the same. One switched from an event regarding a subject to the subject itself, the other looks like it could just as well have been phrased "no consensus to delete" without the comment about something else being done. Saying we can't discuss the use of content about Rita Tateel at Rita Tateel because this AfD is called "The Celebrity Source" is pure bureaucracy - Nobody said you can't discuss anything. Just that you should acknowledge that you're "discussing the use of content about Rita Tateel at Rita Tateel" in an AfD that is not about Rita Tateel. On what are you basing "they are the same subject?" Even when a person is closely associated with and/or the face of and/or the founder of a company, are you saying they can't both be notable? If they can, then one can also be notable while the other is not. And we're !voting on the one that is not here. You can discuss using the content, but "keep article x" is not justified by arguments that similar topic y is notable, even if there's a connection between them. I think if you feel Rita Tateel is notable, you should create Rita Tateel and !vote redirect here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep sourcing is sufficient to meet GNG, per MelanieN. Also, I have restored the deleted material.  When a company is synonymous with its CEO (and often even when it is not), it is perfectly appropriate to have info about the CEO.  The company name is likely the better title of the article unless full biographical detail about Tateel exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Appropriate to have info about the CEO, but not appropriate to keep based on the notability of its CEO per WP:NOTINHERITED. There have to be sources which show the company is notable beyond her. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And if this was an article about her, you could just reverse all the words in your statement and make the same argument. There is one notable subject here - the person and the company name are synonymous.  The only question is which of the two possible title best covers that subject.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I've taken the material right back out. It's not about the subject.  Period.  And neither are the other sources MelanieN threw up: they don't discuss the subject in ANY detail, never mind the "significant coverage" the GNG requires.  You want to create a Rita Tateel article, knock yourself out.  Claiming that because two other unrelated AfDs closed in a different direction is a WP:WAX argument, pure and simple.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are wrong on content. Short CEO bios are a normal part of many company articles.  Also, you need to follow proper dispute resolution, not revert war.  You made a BOLD change, it was reverted, now we discuss (at the article talk page, if it still exists after the AfD ends).  You can't just say "I'm right and you're wrong, so I get my way".  That is not how Wikipedia works.
 * As far as the AfD goes, we disagree about the level of coverage. I saw it's significant, you say it's not.  The matter will be decided by consensus, not writing in bold/italic letters.  You've made your point, I've made mine.  (No one made a WAX argument - if you think Melanie did, you clearly misunderstand her point.) Let's step back and see what others think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If and  agree that the content is usable as part of a Rita Tateel biography (which it seems you guys might), then I won't object to that and we can speedy close this as "rework into biography of Rita Tateel".  I'm sure MelanieN will be happy to do so if that is the consensus call. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I have this discussion on my watchlist so that I will know if that is the decision. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 19 March 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.