Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Wiley

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. ✗plicit 23:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Wiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable individual. Article relies on non-independent sources, minor list-like coverage, very trivial mentions or otherwise stuff she's written herself. Could not find quality sourcing that would support any notability claim elsewhere. PK650 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think influencer marketing has made it to the big time yet, she's mostly tooting her own horn in the sources given. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an article too heavily built on interviews, the subjects own words, and PR releases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete As per nom this fails WP:GNG. Writer claims to be a writer for forbes but there are no forbes references. She is a member of Forbes Councils, which is a pay to play program, not run by Forbes but by an outside group called Community Co. This is an example of WP:AMAA PaulPachad (talk) 23:24, 26 May 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.