Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Beasnael

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Beasnael[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businesswoman, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for businesspeople. As always, people are not "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about their work in those jobs to externally validate their significance -- but "has had jobs" is about the only notability claim on offer here, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on bad primary sources that are not support for notability, such as blogs and photo galleries and press releases and staff profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies she's been directly affiliated with. And while there is one real newspaper article that looks to be an acceptable source, one of those isn't enough. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Africa, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article, this personality is notable. I am putting more secondary sources together.
Jwale2 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone please identify the WP:THREE best sources for establishing notability? I would be happy to reconsider my !vote based on additional sources, of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom pretty much summarizes this case. Instead of solid claim to notability, there's fluff, like "emerging leader", and CEO of redlinked company. 128.252.212.40 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2023 (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.