Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bergman

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bergman[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)

Supposed brochure article for BLP, for own company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ACADEMIC scope_creep^Talk 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, e.g. USA Today 2019, People Magazine May 2019, People Magazine Feb 2019, New York Times 2020, Windy City Times 2019, LA Parent 2019, HuffPost 2015. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beccaynr. Some of those sources are better than others, but some are quite good. I don't see how this article is a brochure; it seems pretty neutral and matter-of-fact. Could take out the "number of surrogacies", though, as that seems to be the only promotional aspect. -2pou (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely when a magazine with the reach of People (whether print or digital) writes a profile about someone, that constitutes significant coverage? Add to that the sources that Beccaynr has highlighted. The tone of the article seems fine, so I'm not seeing how it's a 'brochure article'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:20, 20 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.