Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Kennet

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. bd2412 T 21:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Kennet

[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)

Page is hopelessly promotional and was created by an editor with a stunningly obvious and (undisclosed) COI. The references used do not back up the claims made in the article and many of them are unacceptable sources for a Wikipedia article (blogs, company website, and a link to a pornography site that I removed while I was checking the references). There is nothing to salvage in this article, none of the claims in it can be reliably sourced and the subject does not appear notable enough to warrant the whole-cloth rewrite necesary for this article. SWL36 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's comprehensive assessment. – Athaenara ✉ 04:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article created by a load of SPA to give credence to a non notable. Lots sourced to her own organisation Lyndaship (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is part of a "walled garden" of promotional articles which includes Green Economics Institute (speedy deleted as promotional), The Green Economist (deleted), Michelle Gale De Oliveira (proposed deletion), and International Journal of Green Economics. Deli nk (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. She has "published a multitude of academic papers"? – more a handful than a multitude, mostly published in the International Journal of Green Economics, her own journal; only the first three have citations above single figures. She has "edited and published about 30 books"? – it certainly seems so: these are apparently all published by the same publishing house ... the Green Economics Institute in Reading. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly promotional article (she even tries to claim ownership of the definition of "Green Economics"). Fails WP:PROF. Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (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.