Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Wiatt

Elizabeth Wiatt

Elizabeth Wiatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Blatant conflict of interest advertising. Also included in this nomination, her friend and Fashionology LA partner Jamie Tisch

This is a biography of a living person most likely created by her or an employee (possibly a PR firm) for publicity purposes. The charity activities are wholly ordinary for the wife of an entertainment industry executive in Los Angeles as are blurbs in the local glossy press. While the article makes some modest assertions about jobs she once had in the publishing industry, past employment at mass market magazines is not in itself notable or encyclopedic. The article is wholly unsourced and after skiving off the not-sourced and the un-notable, there is nothing left but blatant advertising linked with this thrice speedily deleted and now salted attempt to promote her new fashion/clothing store on Wikipedia with this nifty slogan as the article's content: n. Where it's cool to be u. Glamorous fun :)! Express yourself. 4 real. Fabulous. Fashion Freedom. You! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the above same for the partner Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as I've said in multiple places now, here for one. I don't think a rush to delete is necessarily warranted. Elizabeth wiatt is salted because Rdeluca doesn't or doesn't want to understand that it was moved to the proper spelling. That said, Wiatt and Tisch and their work in fashion have been covered in reliable sources. I don't think poor current quality of the articles is a reason to delete them right now as there are no BLP issues and there's material from which to write a proper article. Even the brand is starting to get some coverage and will likely be notable once it launches. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think those links show them as noted for "their work in fashion" at all. I see passing mentions about LA society wives and a publicity plant or two about a retail store in Beverly Hills. One even calls them "Hollywood wives." I have yet to see anything approaching the wide coverage mentioned in WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, that's why I said weak. Lord knows I spent enough time trying to track down the source of the current articles because they're copyvios of something, it just happens not to be online or Google hasn't found it. The summary for this said she co-hosted a fashion show, founding member of NRDC Action Forum (no idea what it is, couple others mention her in that context as well). For Tisch: a previous small store, another calls Tisch a boutique owner. Neither is strong and they may well not be notable, but there's some RS coverage of their actions apart from society functions. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless it can be shown that FashionologyLA is actually a notable company, I don't see that she has any other claim to notability. The overall nature of the present article is not at all reassuring. Not that we delete for badly written corporate COI, but it doesnt help. DGG (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to my efforts at clean up. Please note the current version. See also here. As both articles were created but days ago, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and given that in relatively short time I was able to make at least some improvement, please also consider Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

the effectual added content that might possibly matter are 2 articles in Variety. FWIW, The Luxist ref. is the only one about Fashionology, saying May 14, 2008, that, "This summer in Beverly Hills, two Hollywood wives, Elizabeth Wiatt and Jamie Tisch are launching Fashionology LA, " so the company at least is not yet notable.DGG (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)