Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Lester (courier)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Lester (courier)[edit]

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

The awards are essentially promotional. So are the references. So is the article, from title downwards. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this and this and I'm simply not seeing anything for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete obvious AUTOBIO. created by an editor who has only worked on this article and tried to create an article about her company. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has written about industry in the Guardian and been referenced in the FT - recommend article to be developed further rather than deleted cg6237 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

she is not the subject of the article in the 2nd source and only rates a small mention. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has written two business books featuring excellent reviews on Amazon [1] [2]and been interviewed twice about entrepreneurship on BBC Radio 4 [3] [4] - recommend article to be developed further rather than deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.163.196 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.7.163.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - looks like a case of Wikipedia:Lankiveil's Second Law. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure of what qualifies 'dubious notability'? She has two very well received books available to purchase on Amazon and has been interviewed by a prestigious BBC Radio show. I recommend that the article is developed further as required by administrators than deleted completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.146.130 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 217.33.146.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - SPA editors aside, this is a promotional piece about a non-notable individual. Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. And thanks for the chuckle, Yeti Hunter - hadn't heard about that "law". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 13 November 2015 (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.