Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Bradford Raschke

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:20Z

Linda Bradford Raschke[edit]

Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make this bio's notable? Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss. Seems this is One in a large series of article spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#Major_article_spam.3F.--Hu12 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem notable. Delete unless expanded making a case for notability during AfD. Pleclech 22:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems at least marginally notable.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet criteria for sufficient notability listed in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Hu12 00:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , after a minor rewrite with reliable sources. The Lead section shows notability and the References section should be read by the editors. Just needs even further expansion. Reason for deletion is no longer valid. There appear to be many separate industry media reference links, that shows there is reasonable industry interest. Meets this criterion from WP:BIO - "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Featured and profiled in 2 major industry publications (books).

41,000 google hits [1] and there is no 2 with this same name.

More references here:[2] and here [3]

This article is also part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics.

Trade2tradewell 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfD's in this string have common characteristics: The subject is notable within a specialized business-related field; the article has stylistic problems and includes puffery but has enough substance to establish notability. AfD should not be used as Cleanup. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 25 December 2006 (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.