Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit Morin

:{{la|Brit Morin}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brit_Morin Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Brit Morin}})

PR advertisement which was a paid advertisement at that, and the sources and information show this, including the fact it only includes what a PR business listing would say, not an actual encyclopedia, therefore I still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brit_Morin&oldid=743155229 confirm my PROD]. Examples of sheer blatancy are the fact the PR awards are so damningly trivial and unconvincing as any PR attempt to make substance but it's actually far from it. This is a classic example of an advertisement, including in that it was started along with the company article, also an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Of note is that the article creator, {{u|JNorman704}} has declared paid editing on their user page for other articles, but they have not stated there that they were paid to create this article. As such, it is not necessarily a " paid advertisement " as stated in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – An option is to merge this content to Brit + Co. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - There are no compromises when it comes to advertisements, including when both articles were advertisements and in fact part of a PR advertising campaign, suggesting anything otherwise is simply adding fuel to the fires that is current advertising articles, let's not damage the encyclopedia from its current state considering it's been damaged enough as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Arguably Ms. Morin's more notable than her company (maybe that should be merged here). Just a quick Google news search finds in-depth profiles from CNBC [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/17/martha-stewart-of-silicon-valley-courts-millennials.html], [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/4-lessons-one-ceo-learned-from-leaving-google-at-25-to-start-a-business.html], Business Insider [http://www.businessinsider.com/brit-morin-on-what-it-means-to-be-a-homemaker-in-the-digital-age-2015-3], The New Republic [https://newrepublic.com/article/121227/brit-morins-homemakers-review], Observer [http://observer.com/2016/10/why-brit-morin-earned-the-title-silicon-valleys-martha-stewart/], and the BBC [http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34805138], which named her one of its 30under30 entreprenuers last year. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. No evidence this is a 'paid advertisement'. Plenty of coverage exists from the likes of Forbes, CNN, Cosmopolitan, BBC, WIRED, observer.com, USA Today, Elle, and sfgate.com, none of which is 'PR'. --Michig (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Once again I have explained why it's PR and paid advertising, because of the sheer fact it closely advertises the woman and her business, these even contain her own thoughts of what she thinks about business, there's no one else who would know that aside from Brit Morin herself. These are also then interviewed statements above, so it's also not taking literal to the concerns stated and instead are simply saying "Hey, but there's additional interviews and mere mentions!". Considering WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, we can delete any advertisement at any given time especially if it considerably damages the encyclopedia, therefore, simply stating that it comes from a news source but not actually showing the contents, especially including the concerns, shows it's simply an attempt at tossing and filling this page with links, not actual conveyed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

::Yes you've quite convinced me that the BBC is doing "PR" work and accepting paid advertising on behalf of Ms. Morin. Clearly the license fee isn't high enough yet.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – not the slightest evidence that this is a "paid advertisement" and even if it were it wouldn't matter provided it complies with Wikipedia policy. The fact that some sources "contain her own thoughts of what she thinks about business, there's no one else who would know that aside from Brit Morin herself" is not an indication of "PR and paid advertising", it's an indication that a journalist has used an arcane and little-known journalistic technique called "an interview". As for the claim that the BBC accepts paid advertising, I really don't know what to say. ‑ Iridescent 09:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• SNOW Keep. I have no idea why anyone would think a subject with that many noted awards/recognition and that many write-ups in extremely notable venues could possibly not pass WP:GNG and all other sub-guidelines with flying colors. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep but redirect the subject's company (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit + Co) here. The founder appears to be marginally more notable, and I don't think Wikipedia needs two separate articles on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, and the article does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I do not see a promotional tone here, but the article has problems. The introduction covers more aspects of her life and career than the actual body of the article. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.