Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Hawkins

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hawkins[edit]

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

Bio for a person who clearly has access to a very efficient PR team - searching for sources yields large numbers of press releases and other primary sources all showering her with accolades, but nothing that serves to meet WP:GNG. She's a motivational speaker, and she's done a lot of motivational speaking (cos that's her job, innit), but that doesn't in itself make her notable. bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I have cleaned it up a bit and removed some exaggerated/unsourced claims - the pre-cleanup version was a borderline G11 case. --bonadea contributions talk 15:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a thing about this particular "Terry Hawkins" on Gnews. Other people, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything obvious to support notability, unless you count large volumes of primary material but in many different sources. No or very little strong IRSS - however is this due to systemic bias. If the person was male would there be more IRSS in more main stream media. If others think so too I would agree to keep as a counter to systemic bias PROVIDED the article gets referenced by something other than her own web site. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, systemic bias is a problem, but we simply cannot and should not keep biographies of living people that do not have neutral and substantial sources to back them up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 10 February 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.