Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benita Husband

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benita Husband

[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)

Appears to be more of a promotional bio. All references/sources are company bio pages, press releases, etc. No reliable media coverage shown. Needs heavy sourcing to show it meets WP:GNG If kept, article needs reworking for multiple other issues. JamesG5 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor adds at least one reference to a reliable published independent source that devotes significant coverage to this topic. That is the minimum standard that would motivate me to recommend keeping an article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First link that came up was their LinkedIn. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was unable to find sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Article is promo-like, refs are promotional and routine, WP:GNG or WP:NBIO are obviously failed. VickKiang (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree it presents as a promotional piece. Was was also unable to find sources. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per promotional context and unreliable sources. Moresdi (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2022 (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.