Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Carlson

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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Carlson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Insufficient independent evidence of notability. One of the sources is Carlson's own website; another three are behind paywalls so can't be read; no evidence to suggest Carlson is a notable blogger/writer. MurielMary (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than WP:UPE PR nonsense, along with the other TOU violations, Gardenista and Remodelista. Searching news sources gives a lot of passing mentions but nothing worthwhile. Praxidicae (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer. Plus the article is overly promotional. Wikipedia is not a promotion platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:TNT. Sources are broken links, dead links, or lifestyle features for the social set, not serious biographical sources. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep She appears to pass general notability guidelines, even in many publications I regularly read (WaPo, Refinery29, ArchDigest). Here's a selection:

I'll drop these off on her talk page. Missvain (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: Very nice. @MurielMary, Praxidicae, Johnpacklambert, and Bearian:? ミラ P 16:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still feel that a lot of this is puffery and I imagine citogenesis based on the other two UPE articles, so I'll let the AFD play out. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: This is why this exists. Try it. ミラ P 18:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware but I fail to see how on earth that's relevant. Feel free to look at my AFD history if you doubt my familiarity with this template. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poorly sourced at the moment but the WSJ, New York Times and Washington Post articles above are substantial and alone should indicate WP:GNG. Thanks Missvain Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2020 (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.