Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Bowen (thinktank director)

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. Daniel (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bowen (thinktank director)

[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)

Appears to be primarily a promotional article. Very few sources are available online. I could find no immediate hits on news searches. The article was mainly written by compensated and disclosed editors. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. I told her what she needed to do for it to not get flagged for deletion, but she refused to provide me with anything that fit under WP:RS, and eventually canned me because I was telling her what she hired me to tell her but didn't want to hear and accused me of being a pariah to Wikipedia admins.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to put the kabbosh on people paying their way to Wikipedia inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The converge are not from any notable media, hence it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also can't find much in Google news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The Times article is not about her primarily. The other sources are not secondary, or are not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2021 (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.