Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Balcazar

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. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Balcazar

[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)

Blatant advert. Likely UPE, part of a swathe by this creating editor. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ADMASQ article on a non notable individual who fails to meet our basic general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the [100 Women (BBC)] link not help a bit? Chumpih. (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does 100 Women (BBC) count towards WP:ANYBIO? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Do you still hold that position after improvements to the article? Silver seren^C 05:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the BBC articles linked, there seems to be some independent coverage of Giggle Knickers, which might be notable. I recall reading about them in respectable UK press independent of this investigation; see for example The Guardian. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage of Balcazar and her various endeavors is in-depth and sustained. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there an actual deletion argument? Because the article clearly meets the WP:GNG after I went and looked for sources and added them into the article. There's coverage of Balcazar going back years even before the BBC 100 inclusion. Which makes sense for someone that would be nominated for the 100 listing in the first place. Silver seren^C 05:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's expansion together with the additional sources clearly demonstrates notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~It might be better to merge into Giggle Knickers if anyone chooses to create that page.~~ pburka (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct the company page to hers if anything—many of the sources now cited predate that company and discuss other work. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection I agree. pburka (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the so-called fashion expert of Wikipedia, I rarely come across people in this industry who are billionaire owners or supermodels getting profiled by The Times let alone included on a BBC list. Don’t take this for granted. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Also, AfD is not a place to clean up promotional cruft, etc. This is about if she's notable or not. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:ncorp--essentially all the sources are promotional, or placement on promotional lists like the 100 Women BBC--BBC or not, all such lists are useless for notability, or , in my opinion, even for article content., since this is tabloid style coverage. The company might be notable. Her activities prior to the copany certainly are not, so we coulddiscuss the article on the company separately DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are directly about her life and actions that led to her creating her companies. None of it is tabloid coverage. You're basically claiming every single significant piece of newspaper coverage is promotional? Especially considering the coverage is from years before she was put on the BBC 100 list. Silver seren^C 02:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as article was created by a sock. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three-quarters of the entry has now been written by editors in good standing. Is your objection that a sock is credited with the creation? Presumably we could find some kind of technical move to give, for Instance, SilverSeren (now the lead author) article creation credit if that’s the issue. Delete does not seem like an appropriate AfD outcome to me when the subject is notable and we’re not dealing with a TNT situation in the entry itself. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was profiled in the BBC [1]. CutePeach (talk) 18:09, 25 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.