Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Rosenberg

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. ✗plicit 03:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Rosenberg[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)

This page was very likely created as part of a COI promotional campaign. The discussion can be found here. The sources for this article are all either poor quality, primary, or do not mention Rosenberg by name. BrigadierG (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Looking at these sources, there is something very fishy going on here. Far too many of these sources don't mention Rosenberg at all. It looks like, at best, this is original research or firsthand knowledge being badly propped-up with tangentially related sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was conflicted on this one as it seemed there seemed to be adequate coverage to justify WP:GNG. As noted by Grayfell there is something not quite right about the article and it appears to have been written by someone with first hand knowledge. It's very promotional in nature, I do feel there is a WP:COI in there and it's not so much sourced as written and then the sources added. So I started looking for sources and other than superficial coverage or coverage in WP:SPS published by activitists I did not find significant coverage. Hence, I don't believe this person meets WP:GNG. W C M_email 18:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC) PS having looked deeper it appears that many of the photos used in the article may well be copy violations. W C M_email 18:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clear promotionalism, which is enough reason all by itself for deletion.Add to that borderline notability at best, and it's a vey clear delete. The only way to stop thissot of editingis to removehe articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage I found was all local newspapers and activist blogs. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined above. Clearly something not kosher here MaskedSinger (talk) 22:04, 9 December 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.