Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Cashmere Nicole

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. Daniel ( talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Cashmere Nicole

[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)

non-notable -- any notability is as head of a company---but the company itself is of no notability or even significance. The personal details about her life are inappro priate in an encyclopedia ,and would be better suited to a PR write up. There's. extensive name-dropping, and making much of minor charities.

The refs, needless to say, are the expected promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr.
Smitty
Werben} 05:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr.
Smitty
Werben} 05:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr.
Smitty
Werben} 05:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep I've trimmed the puff and would say the significant coverage in reliable sources is beyond routine. Mujinga ( talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mild keep She was on Good Morning America and has a few other articles about her, I think just barely pushing this one over the notability hump. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Remains entirely promotional and if the fluff were completely removed, there would be no content. Consider " endorsed by Tati Westbrook and Jacki Aina. In 2014, Nicole's story was featured on Beyoncé's website, Beyonce.com, as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.[4] [5] The firm is based in San Diego and promoted by Gabby Douglas. " -- 4 consecutive name-drops. And not everyone on GoodMorningAmerica is notable . Her firm has an article, but I don';t think it's notable either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 05:25, December 14, 2021 (UTC)

Comment I chopped that section, feel free to chop more .. but the point is the sources and I would say articles in Forbes, Glamour, Allure, Ebony indicate notability on top of Good Morning America Mujinga ( talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 12:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Not to pleased with the comments about her personal life by the nominator. Many people with Wikipedia articles have had plenty of unsettling things happen in their lives that are in their articles. It ends up looking like this nomination is more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else with comments like that. Regardless, she's notable. Sources:

Missvain ( talk) 04:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per the argument made by Missvain. I, too, am discouraged by the comments in the nomination, even more so given the origins of this article. Since when do we not care for personal details? For context, this article was created during a gender-gap-focused edit-a-thon co-hosted by the White House. Almost all in attendance were young women of color hoping to close the gap by creating or editing articles about notable women in business. The article was later 'beefed' up by me using the sources highlighted above. Deleting when the sources are clearly 'there' sends a bad message to newer editors, especially those outside the typical editor profile.- Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) ( talk) 21:05, 23 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.