Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Sleeper

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 no consensus. (

No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Samantha Sleeper

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

In a rare instance of bringing an article here instead of first going through PROD or CSD-G11 etc., I am concerned that this article, posted in only 3 edits, has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. It's quite obviously (to me at least) artspam - advertorial for a fashion firm masquerading as a Wikipedia BLP. All the sources appear to be about her company and her products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced by tabloid newspapers, specialized fashion magazines/websites, and by "general" sources such as
Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit This entire article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view; there needs to be some editing done on this article to ensure it reads without any promotional slant. This should've been corrected before the article was put to AfD, however. The subject passes notability easily with
WP:GNG so I don't see this as a contender for deletion. st170e^talk 00:27, 19 December 2016 (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.