Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pender Greene

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. Courcelles 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pender Greene

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

Non-notable 'executive coach', article written by the subject, promotional. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source offered that might establish notability is the Network Journal article. But frankly, I just don't find that article to be reliable as it strains credulity both that an LICSW could be one of the "25 Most Influential Black Women in Business" and that an individual could be that influential but have so little coverage to show for it. Googling, I could not find other independent reliable secondary sources WP:RS that might establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The closest was an Examiner article (sorry, can't give the link because the site is on WP's blacklist) talking about "cougars" (women involved with younger men) but that article isn't about the Greene, it's about cougars. Though not a reason to delete, the article reads like an advertisement WP:PROMOTION, not surprising given that it was written by the subject herself WP:AUTO. Msnicki (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition the majority of the edits are auto-biographical Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think something could be written about her, but it might be too soon. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blatant self-promotion and résumé. Yuck! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 8 September 2011 (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.