Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Emerson Bashen (2nd nomination)

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. Seems like the later added sources have convinced people that this is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Emerson Bashen

[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)

Except for one patent, she fails to establish what she is notable for. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly promotional piece, needs deletion. Meeanaya (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD by DGG was weak, else it would have been deleted 5 years back. Meeanaya (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to have been extensively edited by the subject, apparently to promote her business handling EEO claims--see earlier versions. In the process she seems to have restored some copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one paptent does not come even close to making someone notable. People trying to use Wikipedia as a promotion tool is done way too much and we need to stop it before Wikipedia gets shifted to being Indeed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an orphan, mostly OR, and essentially a piece of business promo. Agree with JPL: with the increasing erosion of notability standards, WP is slowly becoming a directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with 3 long profiles of her, with lots of biographical info, one in the article already (BlackPast.org [1]), and two others that I've found quite quickly: Face2Face Africa [2] and Black Enterprise [3], plus a short entry here [4]. It's clear that the subject and others working for her have edited the article, and it does need work to remove unencyclopaedic descriptions, but she does meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article, adding the sources listed above and others. Just as a matter of interest, the article is not an orphan, and has not been for at least 4 years (not that being an orphan is a reason for deletion). Nor is it OR - all information is sourced to the references, except for the degree at Tulane Law School, for which I haven't yet found a source. If no sources can be found, that can be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTPAPER Notable woman. If the article has a WP:POV problem or a WP:PROMOTIONAL feel, it should be edited. WP:ATD. She is Number 45 on Ebony's Power 100 list. Chicago Reporter, Face2Face Africa, Black Enterprise. Notable Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has coverage in a number of sources (this one seems especially good). The page definitely has issues, but this is a case where improvement is preferable over deletion. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, I think this is a good example of WP:DINC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:43, 24 August 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.