Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fran Hauser

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Hauser

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

I started culling through the article only to find that despite having 20 sources, the sources did not support the article's contents, did not even mention the article-subject or only briefly mentioned her in passing. Though she has a distinguished career, does not appear to be notable by our standards. CorporateM (Talk) 01:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a soapbox for Time Inc's corporate communications department. I agree that none of the sources back up her notability - she isn't even mentioned in the vast majority. The principal contributor has worked nearly exclusively on this article, plus a few edits of another Time Inc executive, so it's arguably WP:COI Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:COI as I don't work at Time Inc. This vote shouldn't count. --agringaus 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the user's home page, they work for the same company (Time Inc.) as the subject of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>Once again, we don't work for the same company. Please change the vote then. --agringaus 09:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agringaus, first please sign your posts here. It makes it easier to see who said what if there is a signature at the end of a comment. You can do this by typing four tildes after your comments. When you click on the "Save page" button, those tildes will be converted to your signature with a time stamp.

Thanks, signed all posts. --agringaus 09:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That said, I'm sorry but I don't really have the time to dedicate to fleshing out an article and chasing down references. I edit WP from my real life work and most of my WP work is answering questions and reverting vandalism. I do have two suggestions for you though. First, the easiest way for this article to be kept is for you to remove any promotional language while adding in references to reliable sources. And secondly, if it does get deleted, ask an admin to place the text in a sandbox in your userspace. That way you still have most/all of the text and you can refine it before posting it to the main WP space. Just because it gets deleted, doesn't mean that it can never been posted again. You may want to go through WP:AFC next time though. Peace, Dismas|^(talk) 02:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? I'll improve it overall. Regarding deletion of of Personal Life section. I should probably remove this section from Oprah, Martha Stewart, Marissa Mayer's pages, and mention editors from my article? Because I looked at those before creating Personal Life section. --agringaus 09:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. So she is a president of a division of Time Inc.. I don't believe that that, or anything else in the article, qualifies her as notable. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by verifiable references. Fran manages the largest digital publishing division, and runs charities and non-profit fundraising organizations that help children in need. As far as Wikipedia policy applies to Living Person's Bio and Notability, the article qualifies for status notable, but I'll improve it further. policies on notability --agringaus 09:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete Not a dreadful article but id a BLP and there just isn't the real world references that we can rely to write a proper biography. None of the subjects biodata can be referenced to a reliable source and pretty much the referencing adds up to a big bunch of one line mentions or even no mention at all. Her appearance on a media influential list and induction into an industry hall of fame hint at notability but like a lot of marginally notable figures in new media there just isn't enough to get over the bar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'...to go over the bar...' I'll improve the article, thanks for your comments. --agringaus 09:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nothing particularly notable about the person - what there is I don't think rises past WP:BIO. Perhaps her career will continue and she'll become notable, but not right now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the article before you conclude on notability

CorporateM, Thank you for pointing out on areas for improvement in my article. Before you reach a final consensus re:AfD, please understand that Conflict of Interest is obsolete. Otherwise, the article will be improved.

Please don't bite the newcomers. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource.

Delete - fails WP:BIO, sources do not demonstrate notability. Note to agringaus: there is no need to comment on every "delete", make your point once and leave it at that. Repeating your comments ad nauseam does not help your case. - ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after checking all sources I agree that there is not significant coverage, since the mentions of Hauser are trivial (and, as has been stated, several of them do not mention Hauser at all - although there has been some pruning of irrelevant sources since the article was first nominated, I think.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the pretty boxes Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 1 July 2013 (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.