This article was nominated for deletion on April 5 2011. The result of the discussion was delete.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
Hi everyone. I'd like to get some additional input on the recent double removal of the lawsuit that Kendra Scott's company regarding copyright infringement. I think it has the right to be included in the article, as it comes from a neutral reliable third party source, the Austin Business Journal. You can read a bit of the discussion, which took place on a user talk page - see User_talk:Modern.Jewelry.Historian#Kendra_Scott here. I do not believe that this is promotional, and I do not believe that it is gossip, etc. Also, please note: I have personal or professional connect to Kendra Scott. I don't even wear her jewelery, nor did I have any idea who she was until I wrote the article after reading about her in an Austin magazine online. So I'm pretty surprised that I might have written a "too promotional" article! I also don't care about what happens with the lawsuit. She sued someone about copyright, and it's public news, why not include it? SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text under discussion is the following:
In 2012, the company filed lawsuit for copyright infringement against Anne Ryan LLC, a San Antonio, Texas jewelry company. Scott owns 24 copyrighted jewelry designs and Anne Ryan is accused of violating four of those designs.
"Filed suit" is the proper wording. I think this bit should remain in the article. It is true that many, many lawsuits are filed every day and that most do not merit mention. This one, however, was reported by the Austin print edition of Business Journal which brings it up in notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think the inclusion of mention of the lawsuit is appropriate, and should be restored. I do have one caution for SarahStierch though related to a different edit, per WP:SELFPUB we do consider people to be reliable sources on themselves, as long as the material isn't unduly self-serving. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
What I think should be changed: Kendra Scott Marital Status
Why it should be changed: Kendra Scott made a statement on her blog that she finalized her divorce in September 2020. The divorce was also reported in an interview with Austin Woman Magazine on October 23, 2020.
Generally speaking, blogs and interviews (as PRIMARY sources) are fine for personal details but (as someone questioned on IRC) a divorce also involves someone else (i.e. failing point #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF). Is the link provided enough to merit a change? Primefac (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks back, Jéské Courianoadded a UDP tag which was recently removed by an IP in a series of edits that did not make any substantive changes to the article text. I agree with the placement of the UDP tag and have therefore reinstated it. My concerns are twofold:
The article reads like a PR bio; it focuses excessively on awards an philanthropy, as well as well as framing Scott's life experiences as a journey from the bottom to the top; while that may be true, I feel that the framing and tone are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article.
The article has been edited by a number of suspicious accounts, some of which have since been blocked for socking ([1], [2]) or spam ([3]); there are more, those are just two examples.
Hence, I believe that the article needs a thorough examination and likely a significant rewrite. Since no significant substantive changes have been made in the meantime, I think that removal of the tag is not appropriate at this time. Best, Blablubbs(talk • contribs)13:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Response to third opinion request:
