Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Tilton

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. The article appears to pass GNG and at present is in a NPOV state. Just because it was created by an account with the purpose of advertising, does not mean that it is still the case (that it is still advertising in nature). Due to the fact that Wikipedia is editable by anyone, articles can be improved and have advertising content/puffery removed and can also be improved upon as sources are found (or by copy editing etc.).

As stated by Anachronist, while it is not advisable for editors who have a conflict of interest with a particular subject to edit it, some editors in the scenario do decide to make that choice and are capable of creating a decent article. It is an article that has been around for quite a while and is about a notable individual. As stated by DGG, in its current state, the article is neutral in its point of view and notable.

In reviewing the justifications of the !votes, I have come to the conclusion that it is the consensus of this discussion's participants that this Articles for Deletion discussion be closed as "keep". (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Tilton

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

Not notable. This was created as a promotional page by her company. The account that created it is now blocked and the major contributions to this page have been done mostly by single-purpose accounts. Rusf10 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It no longer matters that this was a SPA article. The promo stuff needs to be cleaned up. She became notable when she was accused of defrauding investors. Rhadow (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes an editor with a COI is capable of starting a decent article. This is a long-standing article about a person notable for some controversy and possibly also for some awards. I cleaned up a bit of puffery just now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article that's almost a decade old and that has plenty of reliable and verifiable sources about the article's subject ,her businesses and her alleged crimes. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard her referenced in a local news article (https://www.postandcourier.com/business/the-collapse-of-an-industrial-icon-what-happened-to-american/article_956f125b-f960-579e-be13-c000dafd5b27.html) and came to Wikipedia to learn more. I think others might do the same. (Apologies if I'm formatting my response incorrectly - this is my first time trying to post to a discussion like this.) DMC Engineer (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and we probably need an article for her company also--it was previously deleted as copyvio..Both are notable, and this article is at present in a NPOV state. Even by my current standards, this is one of the exceptions where an article is justified despite its origin. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the references look fine to me. --RAN (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2017 (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.