Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deberah Bringelson

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deberah Bringelson[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Many of the many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is overstuffed with 75 references, none of which appears to be a profile or feature story about her. Spotchecking sources on the page beings up brief mentions of her in her professional capacity as "CEO of Samceda, San Mateo's economic development agency", and similar. A gNews search on her name got one lonely hit, an opinion article she penned for the opinion article farm Forbes hosts for self-promoting business consultants, her byline there self-promotes her in her capacity as "CEO of Your Strategic Solutions." Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with E.M.Gregory; a PR piece of trivial nature, which fails GNG; local news interest, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page creator attempted to move this to draft space, but it was moved back by a different editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the original draft was copied directly to mainspace without any review on 13 October. I moved it back to Draft on the same day since the notability was very suspect and I formed the view that it would be speedily deleted in its current state. However it was later moved back into mainspace without review on 19 October by the author. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite attempts to help the author to establish notability, none has been demonstrated and searches reveal nothing else - the barrel appears to have been scraped. This still reads as a politicians hustings address and an advertisement. Despite all the references it fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We judge notability by the quality of sources present in the article, not the quantity — an article is not keepable just because it has 75 footnotes in it, if none of the footnotes represent reliable source coverage that's substantively about her (which is not the same thing as coverage that merely mentions her.) Nothing claimed in the article passes an automatic "must-include" criterion at all, and I'm especially unimpressed by the claim that she's one of the youngest people ever to hold political office in Illinois, when the article completely fails to actually explain what political office she ever actually held — so it's entirely impossible to even measure that claim against WP:NPOL at all. This looks for all the world like a direct conflict of interest, whether by Bringelson herself or by a paid-PR editor — but even if she does actually pass NPOL, which again hasn't been demonstrated, she still won't get to write the article herself or pad it out with PR bumf. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (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.