Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Kaufman (corporate trainer)

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 Mandsford 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Kaufman (corporate trainer)

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

Non-notable corporate trainer. References indicate only passing mention of Kaufman (i.e. we need a quote from someone), rather than an in-depth profile of Kaufman herself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This is pure promotion of a personal business: As founder and President of the national training company, Wendy oversees a network of trainers who bring personal expertise to a wide range of work/life balance programs to corporations, not-for-profit organizations, employee assistance programs and educational institutions. Her catalogue of seminars ranges includes over 200 titles ranging from nutrition, financial basics, parenting, communication skills, and stress management. She and her trainer affiliates deliver in person, webinar and teleconference trainings in all 50 states of the US. In 2010 BLI began producing and distributing her trainings in video and audio formats. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Pure promoton. Agree with lhcoyc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotionalism as written; whether the sources might possibly support an article is another matter, but we have established that being interviewed by a newspaper about a subject does not prove one notable, merely shows one to have been a convenient source for the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources lack substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (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.