Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pilar Scratch

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Pilar Scratch


Self-promotion from 2012 by a non-contributor Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOTHERE.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional WP:FAKEARTICLE. MER-C 12:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nomination. Pure self-promotion. jni (delete)...just not interested 14:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is at least one WP:RS that has written about her making this a plausible draft (http://sereinemagazine.com/category/career-women-monday/ with a more complete article on http://sereinemagazine.com/2013/06/03/cwmwardrobe-stylist-pilar-scratch/ She's also won an award of "Vixen of the Day" http://www.vibevixen.com/ http://www.vibevixen.com/2014/01/vixen-of-the-day-pilar-scratch/).  These sources are the result of a three minute search, I'm sure that someone that wanted to search more deeply could hit the threshold for a stub article. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do you think this could survive in AfD, if thrown there today?. Notability is about importance and being interviewed for a single magazine article does not quite make someone notable. I don't know what our notability guidelines for celebrity wardrobe stylists are, but AfD deletes far more well sourced people like for example professors who have published tens of papers and cited by hundreds of their peers. Rest of search results are typical blogospehere content like the "Vixen of the Day" "award" that has zero information content. The "award" she "won" is just a short content-free profile of a random twitter user! I'd expect groupies and hangarounds trying to associate themselves with celebrities creating just that kind of material for increasing traffic to their Twitter/Facebook pages. jni (delete)...just not interested 07:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per and move to Draft:Pilar Scratch (with a note on User talk:Pilar Scratch but no redir, as a user page should not generally redirect to a draft or an article). Is apparently a plausible stub or even non-stub article. DES (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why cannot we decide notability here? Deletion discussion is already ongoing, why this should be send to AfC instead of resolving the outcome right here? AfC is not an indefinite holding pen for hopeless drafts or other material that is not suitable to our encyclopedia. WP:NRV asks for "evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, ..." Pretty clear to me that in this case the notability bar has not been met. There is no significant independent coverage, but only promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity here. WP:SPIP has an interesting choice of words: "Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article"; to me it seems our inclusionist party tries to keep exactly that route wide open even contrary to notability guidelines. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as blatant self-promotion. Given the PR-speak/gossip column style "nothing exceeded her zeal for fashion... followed her passion.. a blooming star, vibrant socialite and a exceptional mother... " etc, I think this is unsalvageable. If there is any real notability beneath the fluff and name-dropping, let someone else write it from scratch. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.