Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Colucci

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Colucci[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking independent, non-trivial support for subject. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article, and the related Mylawsuit.com have been created and edited by two accounts that are working in tandem. Probably not socks. Assuming as much good faith as I can, they are apparently part of some college project that teaches students how to market, and they're using Wikipedia as their platform. One of the accounts, User:Stanfordpandabot, is probably blockable as a role account (you need to look at the history of his userpage and how he has reduced the number of people he claims to be editing for down to just him) and also because it has "bot" in its name. At worst, they are using Wikipedia to promote Colucci and her company (she has an affiliation with Stanford). The other account, User:Vindeniträden, has a WP:FAKEARTICLE on his user page, again with a connection to Stanford, the subject of which is even less notable than Colucci.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I was not aware of the policy on userspace pages, and now that I have checked the policy, I’m about to correct my userspace page. (I was using it as formatting practice because I’m new to Wikipedia.) Stanfordpandabot was the account I created before realizing that only one person may work on each account, and I have stopped using Stanfordpandabot since then. Please feel free to remove it.
I am in the process of updating Michele Colucci to include more references to her important contribution as a female entrepreneur.--Vindeniträden (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. We can't remove accounts, but I've indefinitely blocked the other account, as much for the username violation as for anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s fine. Provided that my current account is not in violation of any policies, I would appreciate if you would please lift the auto-ban on my IP address—please see my userspace talk page. --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Stanford connection, yes, I am a Stanford student studying women in entrepreneurship and the bias against women in this field. As part of this coursework, I have read about Michele and her important work as a pathbreaking woman in entrepreneurship, for which she has received the significant recognition the article cites. Yes, I discovered Michele partly because of her Stanford connection, but I am not affiliated with her and have no interest in her inclusion on Wikipedia except as an important female figure in entrepreneurship. I have re-reviewed the criteria the other administrator cited, and I still think Michele Colucci meets the criteria cited above, making her suitable for inclusion as a notable person, both for her recognition as a female entrepreneur and for her contribution to film. --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vindeniträden asked me to come here and participate, along with several other people who haven't edited this article. The wording was neutral, and I can't particularly understand why we were picked; it doesn't seem to be a WP:CANVASS violation. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find editors who seem to have some knowledge of this subject. Thanks --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked Kevin Gorman. These are all experienced editors, and I'm not particularly concerned that they won't exercise independent judgment, but I'd famliarize yourself with WP:CANVASS anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I followed Nyttend’s link to read more about WP:CANVASS. --Vindeniträden (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; apparently no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sourcing is good, e.g. the patent (can't dispute that she holds the patent), but it's not substantial. Nothing here that I see is completely independent of the subject. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Pinethicket (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added an Authority control template to the page with VIAF and LCCN data and a WorldCat link. — Hebrides (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I, also, had found and added one or two other references (please see edit history). Not sure whether they bring anything new and worthwhile into the discussion. --Vindeniträden (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source Suggestion—I found an additional source, [[1]], that might provide a useful reference. I can incorporate the source myself, but I’d like to invite some other editor with an independent perspective to consider whether the source makes sense to cite on the page. --Vindeniträden (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything depends on context, but a blog is not generally considered a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in view of additions to the article since the comments above were made: as well as the references cited, she has VIAF, LCCN entries plus WorldCat; she's also mentioned in two books in connection with The Skulls II. — Hebrides (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2014 (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.