Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adele Scheele (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Scheele

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

I doubt this person meets WP:GNG also given the subject matter of her work WP:PROF does not seem relevant. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly PROMO. "Career coach" is not notable per se. Art has no RS and was created by a short-lived SPA acct (7 total edits) about 9 years ago. Purpose seems to be to steer readers to her coaching business website. Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total lack of secondary sources and no claims for inherent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a syndicated column and spinning it into three books sounds like the sort of thing that could plausibly be notable. But our article is heavily promotional and fails to make the case for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. Web searches found only more promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a junk PR article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I must concur with the concerns that this is merely a puff piece. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear promo piece not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 13 September 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.