Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Cornely

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Cornely

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has a large conflict of interest problem because it is

Almost entirely written by its subject
Almost entirely cited by self-published articles written by the subject.

Ignoring the self-published articles, it's difficult to see notability for this person. If anything, I think it would be more beneficial to have an article about their charity rather than the person themself. tommylommykins (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that this conflict of interest problem has already been raised, but not in the context of AFD. The relevant discussion is here: User_talk:Tinacornely. The outcome of that discussion was that the author should be given extra time to establish notability. In the time since then, no new indication of notability has appeared in the article, and a web search does not indicate much other presence on the web that isn't self-published. tommylommykins (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 'reliable' source are available if you search, I've added one. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A COI is never sufficient reason for deletion and here the article is neutral on top of it, so doesn't even need a COI tag. The Miami Herald article (ref #2) and the Huffington Post article (ref #4) are both quite extensive and biographical That should be sufficient to establish notability. Pinging @Bellerophon: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was accepted because the refs at the time of acceptance were sufficient to demonstrate that the subject had a fair claim of notability. The nominator here seems to be confusing the issues of COI and notability. While the username for the key contributor for this article is problematical (for purely policy reasons) and indicates a likely COI, this has no bearing on Cornely's notability. As Thaddeus notes, COI (as a deletion rationale) is almost never supported at AfD unless accompanied by rampant promotionalism, which is clearly not the case here. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have edited the article and removed most of the self-published sources as they seemed unnecessary padding. I have also expanded the article, tidied it up and placed citations at relevant junctures in the body text, rather than all piled together at the end. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 12:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.