This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because G11 requires that an article be "exclusively promotional" to be speedily deleted under this criteria, but the article currently contains encyclopedic biographical information as well as explicit criticisms of Yarbro's content from doctors/dermatologists. G11 also states that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" but this article is written from a neutral point of view, merely reflecting information from mainstream reliable secondary sources. G11 says that if a subject is notable, then rewriting is preferable to deletion. Even if the current article is biased (in my view it isn't, but even if it is), the subject is clearly notable per WP:GNG with significant coverage given in The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times, Women's Wear Daily, and Vogue, amongst others. Therefore, the page clearly doesn't meet the criteria. --Alduin2000 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that when I see the phrase "skincare influencer" my first thought is "Delete!" but, for better or worse, this particular skincare influencer does seem to be notable. I can see why some people might think it sounds a bit promotional but it is not spam and there is coverage to demonstrate notability. I've taken speedy deletion off and I'd encourage a bit of copy editing to improve the tone. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over the article and see if I can try to sort any problems with tone, hopefully some time soon. Would appreciate comments or contributions from others who currently take issue with the article too, that would be really helpful. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like Generation Z and millenials are more likely to discover beauty products through word-of-mouth marketing than other demographics, making skinfluencers such as Yarbro more important for advertising to younger consumers are heard in board-rooms, when PR Gurus pitch influencers, whom the company has the luxury of recruiting.
I think our purpose is a bit different. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is one example among many and I have blanked the section. (cc:@Praxidicae) TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, I understand that you feel this article is promotional in nature, but I also think there are some things that you have removed which are important to Yarbro as an encyclopedic topic. Generally, if a person is influential in a given sphere, this should be reflected (using neutral language) within the body of the article. The Bob Dylan example from WP:PEACOCK is a perfect example. Now Yarbro is certainly no Bob Dylan, but he is somewhat influential in the sphere of social media influencers, that's the impression that I get from the secondary sourcing on this anyway. I think this should be included in the article, even if some major rewording is required to maintain a neutral tone. Are there any specific aspects of the section you removed that you object to, or do you see the entire section as entirely promotional in nature? I'd also just like to appeal to WP:AGF, at least for the present. Any input here would be quite useful. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, awaiting a response. Specifically, comments on the content removed about Yarbro's influence over brand sales and his broadly gen Z audience would be useful. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
