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.
Insufficient independent evidence of notability. One of the sources is Carlson's own website; another three are behind paywalls so can't be read; no evidence to suggest Carlson is a notable blogger/writer.
MurielMary (
talk) 07:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this is nothing more than
WP:UPE PR nonsense, along with the other TOU violations,
Gardenista and
Remodelista. Searching news sources gives a lot of passing mentions but nothing worthwhile.
Praxidicae (
talk) 11:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable writer. Plus the article is overly promotional. Wikipedia is not a promotion platform.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep She appears to pass general notability guidelines, even in many publications I regularly read (WaPo, Refinery29, ArchDigest). Here's a selection:
Sorry, I still feel that a lot of this is puffery and I imagine citogenesis based on the other two UPE articles, so I'll let the AFD play out.
Praxidicae (
talk) 16:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm aware but I fail to see how on earth that's relevant. Feel free to look at my AFD history if you doubt my familiarity with this template.
Praxidicae (
talk) 18:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - poorly sourced at the moment but the WSJ, New York Times and Washington Post articles above are substantial and alone should indicate
WP:GNG. Thanks
MissvainCardiffbear88 (
talk) 23:08, 14 January 2020 (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.