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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW as it is already evident that no-one agrees with the nomination and the discussion is acrimonious. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Hinch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Formerly contested CSD. Social media "Influencer" with little to no evidence of notability, little to no content other than promotional, links to promotional material or outside sources. Potentially breaks GNG and social media notability policies. Lots of headers about their platforms and products, very little content about why they should have free advertising on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's current state has no bearing on whether the subject is notable; by all means, she appears to be. She's apparently one of the most popular influencers in the UK, with widespread sourcing focused on her from major news outlets. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). The article isn't overly promotional now, but I cut a few things regardless because they seemed inappropriate. If the article is lacking balance, as the nominator claims, then it might be a good idea to include some more detail on the criticism of Mrs Hinch (she was investigated by a watchdog for failing to disclose when she was doing paid advertising: [7]). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references from The Times (which was present but not identified) and The Guardian (one already present, more noted by ImaginesTigers above, most of which are now in the article), plus the referenced best-selling books, establish notability. I've further tightened it up, made more use of existing references and added some, reinstating her husband, children, and date of birth and adding her autobiography and referenced follower numbers. @Suttonpubcrawl: please add a bolded Keep to one of your comments above. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably make a new policy-based response entirely; their behaviour above was pretty poor. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets ANYBIO as a bestselling author, and GNG through the BBC and Guardian sources. Any issues with promotion or advertising can be fixed through the ordinary course of editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Undeniably meets notability criteria. Several articles about the subject in the Guardian and Times, two of the UK's most respected newspapers. Subject is the author of four best selling books and therefore not solely a social media figure. All this listed in the article itself. Prominent figure in the UK. If one believes there are issues with the article then the appropriate way to deal with these is by editing them, not deleting the article on spurious notability grounds. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 'cos of the book, but my goodness our notability policies let an awful lot of crap in. -Roxy . wooF 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely the point of an encyclopaedia is to document reality, not gatekeep it? I got involved in editing the article in the first place because I hadn't a clue who this woman everyone was going on about was, and I was shocked to find she wasn't in Wikipedia despite clearly being a notable figure. I thought it was important to have some sort of neutral reference about this person whose popularity and prominence is still frankly bizarre to me! Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree with prior evaluations. She is notable and has best selling book. Peter303x (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2021 (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.