Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Sanford


 * 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, noting also the copyright violation concern. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Adriana Sanford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the numerous links listed, I'm unable to find even a single reliable source that directly addresses the subject. WP:BIO or WP:PROF appear to be a long way off being met. SmartSE (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Advert masquerading as an article, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Question - What is the conflict of interest issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * see WP:COIN, an editor has declared they are related to the subject via Espenshied/Overstolz family (see this revision and this declaration for connection). – Brianhe (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear though, COI has nothing to do with my nomination - the subject isn't notable, plain and simple. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Question - Are there current concerns about copyright? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - a large chunk of the article is directly copied from her website. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article may have slipped by my watch (but it appears that a considerable amount of cruft was added to it after I accepted it). Without respect to notability, paid editing and copyvio are reasons for deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. She is not a professor, whatever she may choose to call herself:  "Dr. Sanford is a clinical associate professor of management (specializing in law and ethics) at W. P. Carey School of Business.".  That is, she's someone from the business community who teaches of few courses, not a member of the regular faculty.  I cannot find her books on worldcat.  She is not notable3, this is an advertisement, and I suggest speedy deletion as G11, It canl;t be cured by fixing the copyright. It amazes me that ASU   let her post this on their website.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as certainly questionable overall, best deleted and restarted if better is available. None of this better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. My sweeps turned up empty although I found a mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete ...or add some contact information, 'cause an advertisement needs that. Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.