Talk:Sharon Exley

Notability
All or nearly all the references note the firm as receiving recognition, not Ms. Exley specifically. This suggests that the firm may be notable, but doesn't clinch notability for the co-founder, especially if he or she is not specifically mentioned. There is already an article on Peter Exley, whose notability is supported by sources that refer specifically to him. In short, are there multiple reliable sources that focus on Sharon Exley, or that name her individually, and not the firm generally, as an award recipient? 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you support a redirect per WP:BOLD? I would. Qworty (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'd asked Drmies about this as well, and he favored the idea, too. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've gone ahead and redirected it. Qworty (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Testing 123
Does this thing work? Victor Grigas (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, of course it works! Lilytreehe (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-creation of article
It's unclear whether the issues that led to this redirecting a few years ago have been resolved; I am the same editor as the 99 IP that engaged in discussion here previously. There remain a number of claims to honors, which may have been assigned directly to Ms. Exley, or to her businesses. The difference, not always clear in this article, is relevant to notability. I have removed some of the promo speak from the intro, as well as a separate section on a book ; again, there's no reason to believe the publication was itself notable, and it's otherwise mentioned in the article. I'm not reverting to the old redirect, as there may be a better claim to significance in this version. Still, WP:COI has long been a concern here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , your thoughts? Is this any more solid than it was over two years ago, when it was redirected? To me it's looking like a WP:SPA came here to re-create it, with some promo speak and weak references. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, remember the editor who redirected it? I had another look, and in its current version it's unacceptably unacceptable. There's really nothing here but a list of awards--which are either unverified or non-notable or both. No, I don't see anything here that yells notability, and I'm fine with restoring the redirect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)