Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Kersh

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. Michig (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kersh

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found. Page cited to passing mentions and WP:SPIP sources. Separately, I nominated the subject's company for discussion as well; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4cabling. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of the sources cited in the article (like the first three) appear to give the subject significant coverage without being primary-source interviews. Is there something about them that makes them non-RS? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 out of three sources are based on interviews, as in:

[Kersh] founded the business seven years ago and says it is now turning over about $8 million a year. (...) "That's why we stood up and took notice when, a few years ago, a guy started up a competing business", she said. Source
"It's never been my dream to sell cables", Kersh says... (another source)

The first source describes Kersh being named as Young Manager of the Year for New South Wales, but this does not seem to be a significant enough honour. Much of the article is built on self promotion; the subject has not achieved anything significant just yet to warrant an encyclopedia article. Both pages are part of the walled garden created by the same contributor, presumably with a promotional intent. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in your other AFD, coverage based on interviews isn't the same as interviews. One is reporting by a reliable source, the other is equivalent to a primary source. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources inckuding those coted in the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was withholding a decision until the nominator responded to my query, and now that I find I disagree with the nominators reasoning with respect to the sources, I believe the subject has sufficient independent reliable source coverage to keep. I don't like this; in fact if I had my way, Wikipedia would have only posthumous biographies with very few exceptions, but we have to live within the policies and guidelines that exist now. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 4cabling. Clearly no reason to have both articles, but it would be more appropriate to have the content in the article for the company given the company is the only thing Kersh is really notable for. (See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4cabling.) Kb.au (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging is not AfD's problem. The portions of interviews provided by the interviewer and the publisher's staff are third party sources, so the nomination has made undue assumptions about the sources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2018 (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.