Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Davis


 * 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alison Davis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

COI biography, possible autobiography (discussed here). Google news/web search turns up mostly other people name Alison Davis. The references in the article are either associated with the subject or only mention Ms. Davis in passing. Fails WP:Bio due to the lack of coverage in WP:Reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —PDCook (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I've also tried to find significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO, but haven't found enough for this person. I might also mention that the article was created and substantially edited by an editor whose username matches her husband's name Matthew Le Merle, and there was even one edit by an editor with a name identical to her. Seems self-promotional in nature. --  At am a  頭 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since there is a clear COI issue here, people might want to look at the Matthew Le Merle article as well. PDCook (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is covered in detail in reliable sources such as this and this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those are independent reliable sources. The first one you mentioned is more of a profile, not an article. The second reference is from McKinsey and Company, where she was a business analyst.
 * The second reference is a reprint of material from the San Francisco Business Times. Sources such as this, McKinsey and Reuters seem quite reliable for our purposes.  They have significant reputations as information providers to protect and would risk law suits if they published inaccurate information about company officers. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting they are reputable and accurate. I'm saying they're not significant and independent. PDCook (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The San Francisco Business Times and Reuters seem both significant and independent. Please present evidence if you wish to suggest otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the publications as a whole; I was talking about the individual articles you referenced above. Anyhow, I didn't get involved with Wikipedia to argue with people. So let's just see what everyone else thinks. PDCook (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep We are not sure the article on Alison Davis is an autobiography and even if it is: autobiographies are not forbidden by wikipedia policy. I checked that at least half of the references deal with detailed information about Alison Davis. So this article should be kept and this deletion discussion should be closed quickly. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)).
 * Please explain which reliable sources you believe contain detailed information that is independent and significant. PDCook (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion should run its proper course and not be "closed quickly"; we have conventions for how we do things here!--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the majority of the institutions with which Davis is associated in a senior capacity are red links; if they have not been deemed notable enough yet for an article, I fail to see how someone whose only real claim to notability is an association with them makes the cut. The whole thing smacks of self promotion.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about the sources provided by Colonel Warden. Cunard (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real claim to notability. The sources provided by establish verifiability, but not notability. Pburka (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Beyond COI, I don't see notability here Vartanza (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lots of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are not the problem here. The problem is that this person is not notable, she does not meet any criteria of Notability (people). A profile in a directory of companies and executives, which is really just a publicly available résumé, does not necessarily establish notability. Wine Guy   Talk  11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable autobiographical article.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2010 (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.