Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Hindmarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep, AfD is not a call for editing services, go edit the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anya Hindmarch

Anya Hindmarch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is no doubt that this article is very spammy; however, if the assertions are true, it may not be irredeemably spammy, so I would feel wrong speedy deleting it. Still, delete, pending reliable sources and a major trimming job. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep if fully rewritten, else delete and hope for an eventual decent article, possibly at I’m Not A Plastic Bag. Hindmarch/I’m Not A Plastic Bag is indeed quite notable and there's solid sourcing to work with, but an article with such unsalvagably spammy content as "synonymous with beautiful craftsmanship, exceptional quality" must not be allowed to remain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the statement "must not be allowed to remain" then just hit the edit button and remove it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read my words more carefully. I didn't say there was an issue with that statement, but with the overall tone of the article. If fixing it was as simple as removing a line here and a line there, it wouldn't be at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and start over. This is not an article, this is an ad. No reliable, independent sources. No sources whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - passes WP:Notability, its just a YUCK article at present and needs all the references that a quick GSearch finds put in, and the SPAM removed (aka a rewrite!). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's subject is clearly notable. Anyone who has concerns about the content is free to edit it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Feature articles from BBC [1] and times Online [2] are sufficient. Just add them. DGG (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I added the refs and toned down the puffery. RMHED (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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.