Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Friedman

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. Per the arguments offered by Megalibrarygirl. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article reeks of COI. The sources are almost exclusively press releases published in trade journals (I have placed ad copy in trade journals masquerading as articles, it is trivially easy). There are a few quotes of Friedman, but actually nothing substantive about' her. This article is basically an advert. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use more sources, but what part of “Nation’s Buisness” or the “Chicago-Sun Times” are press releases? ElonTesla (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — ElonTesla (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rocckker13 (talk • contribs) and has been blocked indefinitely.[reply]

It's churnalism. PR puff recycled. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Call center consultant, of which there are many. Not notable. The title indicates that this is a BLP. Fails the standard for GNG. Rhadow (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BLP of a person who teaches how to work at a call center is non-encyc. Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sources are quotes of advice given professionally and do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Article is WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~Kvng (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Changing my vote based on new information. See below. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an add article for her business,masquerading as a biogrpahy, because the guidelines for notability of businesses are much better held to than the guidelines for notability of people, even though BLP rules should mean it is the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here are several RS biographies of her and her work. St. Louis Post Dispatch 1986, Forbes 2017, Santa Fe New Mexican 1985, Honolulu Advertiser 1987, Quad City Times 1982, St. Louis Jewish Light 1978. I've added these to the article, removed puffery and fluff. She was a well-known local business woman and actress before The Telephone Doctor. After that, she continues to be covered. Passes GNG. Pinging @Rhadow, Agricola44, Kvng, and Johnpacklambert: to take another look now that the article is cleaned up and sourced better. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability demonstrated in newspaper sources posted by Megalibrarygirl. Any remaining WP:PROMOTIONAL issues can be addressed though editing anchored by these new sources. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Kudos to Megalibrarygirl for the referencing a clean up, which has provided sufficient sourcing to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The new references clearly indicate notability; the article still needs work to remove puffery. Ifnord (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2017 (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.