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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Hyatt[edit]

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

Delete, while providing sources they appear to largely be from sites the article subject uses, has a connection with or is only trivially mentioned and notability is not at all clear. I feel that this person fails GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although several of the sources are not independent or are passing mentions, I see enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that I think she just scrapes by on notability. I readily admit that others may disagree in good faith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Any "social media strategist" has to be looked at closely, as fairly and objectively as possible. The negative issues of COI, paid-editing and self promotion surround them like a bad air, but on the other hand unjustly deleting creates problems for Wikipedia because it motivates strategists to find paid editing "help" to get past AfD gatekeepers. In this case I looked closely at each of the 19 sources listed. A few dead links, a few trivial mentions. The majority are interviews, Q&A type articles. These are not fully independent and shouldn't represent the majority of the sources. They show some notability but I don't think we should build a case on mostly interviews. The only source that is unambiguous is BerkshiresWeek. OTOH she was the publicist for funkmeister George Clinton 10 years ago, that's no funky thing, so there may be other older sources out there that establish notability. -- GreenC 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing of any substance or substantial coverage to really warrant notability. In my opinion, this seems like clear advertisement for her firm. Pearljambandaid (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Article looks like bombardment of references.Iniciativass (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE and Cullen. The OurSource is possibly reliable. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:26, 27 March 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.