Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Olsoff


 * 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. Salvio 13:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Olsoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Not much in the way of media coverage about her specifically out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit and Keep A quick look at the news search of her name brings up a lot of articles related to her and the PPWO gallery. This page is definetly in need of updating but I would not say a need of updating is justification for removal. That being said I could easily be entirely wrong and that these local "news" sources and art "news" sources could very well not be justification for the article to continue. That being said, her gallery probably grants her enough without mentioning her positions and what not. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree there are a lot of articles re her and the gallery. But they lack the depth that might start to count as significant coverage. I note from the edit history of the article that the gallery's own article was deleted a while back. asnac (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the article on her businesspartner, Penny Pilkington, was deleted as a creation by a blocked editor, Donnie Juanito) [log. That same editor has also contributed to this article with sockpuppets; 10 edits by User:Bzrp, 3 edits by User:Artesanal, 1 edit by User:Nypoo. Additionally, we have 3 edits by SPA User:Wendy2127 and 1 by blocked editor and likely UPE User:Susan_Spaid and 1 edit by sockmaster User:Slowking4 This is embarrassing enough that we'd be doing the subject a favour by removing the article. [[User:Vexations|Vexations]] (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, It is a red flag to be sure, but the quality of the edits are what should be considered. A broken clock is right twice a day and if these edits were originally done in good faith, edits done later in bad faith would not invalidate the original good edits. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, but no, these edits were NOT originally done in good faith. See  Now imagine that it is now public knowledge that you're the subject and you thought you that a) you should have a Wikipedia article b) nobody was going to write one about you unless you paid them. Then you were too cheap to hire someone who was any good, so you hired a cheap agency that was so incompetent that they got caught. Wouldn't you prefer to just forget about having a fake article and make it go away? It's the kind thing to do. Vexations (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, yeah... thats pretty bad. I want to say this is worth keeping still but that is definitely a red flag. Bgrus22 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom for failing WP:BIO; non-notable awards do not confer notability under WP:NARTIST. At best, the issues regarding paid editing suggest WP:TNT. Ifnord (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of meeting BIO or CREATIVE; given that, the paid editing question is irrelevant.   Ravenswing     12:25, 24 August 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.