Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen McGill

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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen McGill

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

Extensive COI and POV over the existence of this article. However, most of the given sources are either first party or industry sources, with few reliable sources outside the industry to indicate notability. Subject appears to fail WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. PROD declined by SPA who is likely either the subject of the article or a close associate of the subject. Safiel (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removing all the peacockery from SPAs Designgirlatschool, FanciestNancy, Designexpert and Jamesrosenthal (who all failed to disclose their COI, BTW) this article is now a stub that says McGill runs an interior design firm and that her work has been featured in a number of magazines, books and TV shows. Not a single one of the sources says anything about her or her work other than "we suggest that you buy this". That is not substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. There is nothing in the sources that establishes the subjects' notability. As for the COI, at least one of the user names bears a striking resemblance to McGills fiancé at the time according to the Globe and Mail. Mduvekot (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is probably the only somewhat reliable source talking about her. All other sources either contain a single line mention of her or are self published sources. Fails WP:GNG and nothing indicates why the subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the bad faith editing, it seems the intention is to simply promote the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 30 May 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.