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. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meika Hollender (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)

Per WP:PSEUDO and WP:1E. All press coverage is to the safe-sex product. Brianga (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - page needs an incredible amount of work, but the coverage does in fact seem to focus on her as much as the company. For example, this Fast Company article refers to her directly in its title: These 10 Powerhouse Women Want You To Talk About Sex, and and also focuses on her predominantly. Yvarta (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done a good job. I would just like to mention that the person who created the article works for the company run by Hollander and has ignored my warning about conflict of interest.Deb (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the most positive outcome, if the COI editor has ceased actively editing the article, perhaps we can coerce them to the talk page, so any edit requests they have in the future you could screen for bias before it's added. I can work today on cleaning it more. Yvarta (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable businessperson. Quis separabit? 18:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means as this still only emulates an article existing for only PR, none of it comes close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Relisted to invite more analysis of the sources. The only source analysis so far has come from the "keep" side, while the "delete"s are almost all bare assertions of non-notability.  Sandstein  19:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If analysis is needed, tI will then mention that the sources themselves are all essentially PR (being a notable news source alone is not a claim of notability) and then also consist of interviews, which essentially in turn become PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- this is a vanity page on a non-notable businessperson. The coverage in Fas Company is the most interesting, but even it is based on the subject's promotional activities. The rest of the coverage is trivial or PR like. This is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable business person. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:16, 2 September 2016 (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.