Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Tilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 1 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]
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.