Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Fong

Danielle Fong

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

Hopelessly promotional, and attempts to remove the puffery and leave an encyclopedic core have been repeatedly rejected by a series of spas and ip editors. much of it unencycopedic opinions about how clever she is, a good deal of it name-dropping about other people associated with her projects, extensive quotations to show "fantastic support" and the like, mostly about a minor power company that has not yet actually done anything, going to the extent of providing detail about the various grants that have been rejected. Since NOT ADVOCACY and NPOV are basic principles--policies much more important than details like the notability guideline, I think it's hopeless to have an article. If anyone thinks they can get a proper article, they're welcome to try, but it's beyond me. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are promotionally worded pieces touting the subject as a Wonder Woman who founded a company! Unable to see how this qualifies for WP:BIO and WP:N based on these sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Continual NPOV violations and edit warring to keep in promotional material and trivial unencyclopedic content. Also, see this statement by DGG at BLP noticeboard regarding the subject. [1] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established by an array of references from top tier sources. Tone could be more encyclopedic, sure, but perhaps it is accurately encyclopedic to describe Danielle as a far above average human. I would suggest that nearly the entire funding and development section be moved to the LightSail Energy article. Kevin143 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current incarnation without prejudice This version has seen appreciable gameplaying, and in a few cases, excessive trimming as well. Neither suits any encyclopedia. She is clearly "notable enough" for something closer to a biography than the current mishmash is. Collect (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete This person is marginally notable and is under severe promotional pressure. It is not worth our effort to try to maintain this page in a neutral state. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Marginally notable at best. There are plenty of Forbes' 30 under 30 lists every year. Edwardx (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the bulk of the promotional content about LightSail Energy has been removed from this page. The same goes for any promotional-sounding content about Fong. taa (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the original state of the article was terrible and it will have to be watched carefully to make sure that the promotional stuff is not allowed to creep back in. However, there does seem to be enough material out there to support a brief biography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, there might have been promotional material in this article, but Fong herself is clearly notable enough to merit a page, and it is extremely well sources. Wikinewby2017 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable well over the threshold for a page. Current events re: LightSail hibernation make it more so. Should add more NPOV content re: LightSail founding and hibernation from these articles. Ryan (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]