Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Zatlyn

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. ✗plicit 23:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Zatlyn

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Essentially every reference here, is a disguised autobiography (like the Globe and Mail article listed in the references as "Gale OneFile", which is just an aggregator), or a similar promotional interview where she says what she likes about herself, notices about placement on promotional lists (like two of Forbes multiple series of lists (Unless we are willing to accept that Young Global Leaders is a notable award; I consider it merely another promotional list, all of them designed for the purposes of PR). I think there's no point keeping promotional paid writers out of WP if we merely use what they got published elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources are still reliable sources. @DGG: (Personal attack removed) Gamaliel (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your thinly veiled personal attacks have no place in an AfD. Dropping such anonymous complaints (real? made up?) has no place on enwiki, and people with a history of these should be careful that it doesn't become a bad habit. Starting an AfD should also never be dependent on whether the article creator is a newbie or not, but should solely rely on the merits of the article and the notability of the subject (if notability is the AfD concern). Fram (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I understand, only you are allowed to post thinly veiled personal attacks in an AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to your infamous, deleted, BLP violating comments in the Signpost where you made false claims and hid behind a clumsy attempt at anonimity (to name just the most obvious example of this behaviour); you were referring to? Nothing? Unsubstantiated comments? Thought so. I have removed your comments per WP:NPA. Please don't reinsert them. Fram (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The comment is in no way a "thinly veiled personal attack" and the implication that it is "made up" is clearly against our WP:GOODFAITH principles. I will back up this claim that, yes, editors do feel hounded when entire lists of articles are put up for deletion when many of these article clearly pass WP:GNG. AfD should be about debating long term notability, and by all measures the subject as the founder and executive of one of the most prominent cybersecurity and content delivery networks in the world, with WP:RS coverage, should definitely have an article. The nom's claims that they are simply "promotional interviews" are off base when one inspects the sources. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't "assume good faith" when it comes to personal attacks. DGG has put up for deletion one article by the same creator, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammarrian Rogers (2nd nomination), which ended in delete. OR are you referring to the WMDC club? Perhaps they shouldn't all vote "keep" on articles edited by one of them and where the editors seem to be in off-wiki discussions complaining about AFDs and then attending these AfDs. Such things have generated bad publicity for WMUK recently, I hope WMDC isn't acting in the same manner too often. Fram (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG as she is the founder and executive of a top cybersecurity and content delivery firm, and has had WP:RS coverage from multiple outlets. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

abusive sock of banned editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

keep no wp:before - substantial coverage here [1], [2], [3], and more mentions here [4], [5], [6] we have list articles based on forbes lists, so deprecating this reliable source is against consensus. it would not do to have an article on the COO, but not the CEO: that might be a donna strickland moment. but i supposed banned admins do not care how bad they look. --Sheiktelex (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is not a "banned admin", and I haven´t even voted here (and am not banned obviously), so your cheap jibe widely misses the mark. But I agree that many admins don´t seem to care how bad they look. Fram (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are an intelligent person, why do you not write some content, rather than shitting on others work, for a decade, and edit warring on talk pages? --Sheiktelex (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing personal attacks is not really "shitting on others work", and as I have written a lot more content than you have achieved so far, your comment is again wide of the mark. Fram (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but tone police. how is that working for you? are you happy getting banned? no self-reflection book burner? --Sheiktelex (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA... Fram (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources aside, she is clearly notable. The article is also viewed an average of 5,000 times per month. People are clearly seeking out information about her. That doesn't scream 'not notable' to me. -Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, article views do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs seven more days to sort out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, making a mountain out of a molehill, most references aren't what they seem. Personal attacks as above tell me this isn't a valid discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, some of the references aren't of quality, but some of them are okay and there are others: 1 , 2, 3.. I feel like she is notable enough considering her work (Cloudflare). Not to mention, if folks are looking for the information (as stated above), it's worth working to keep the article in my opinion. I agree that we should steer clear of promotional writing and look for better sources. Happy to assist with editing and finding more sources. Jamie-NAL (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly none of those fly - press releases, primary sources, and Medium doesn't build notability. Missvain (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not a place to clean up promotional articles. The subject clearly passes notability guidelines. Per the following sources that establish WP:GNG

Missvain (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2021 (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.