Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avivah Wittenberg-Cox


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

UPE creation for individual of questionable notability. WP:NOT and TOU violations. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople,  and Women. CptViraj (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: This does seems to be more of a LinkedIn profile of a successful person in business than someone who meets WP:GNG, so deletion seems to be in order unless significant coverage of her directly is found.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. &mdash;siro&chi;o 15:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Plenty of Forbes contributor pieces written by this person in Gnews, no sources about this person. What's used now isn't good enough to keep the article. Delete for lack of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Has written a few books, but I can't find reviews for any of them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I have two references, out of interest this woman is notable. There's notability associated with.[], [] and [] only are enough to establish notability. Thus generally pass GNG 102.91.71.127 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the first is an independent/reliable source. The other two quote the subject but don't give much information about her. Looks marginal with what's currently on the table. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First is not independent coverage so no good for GNG. Others are just comments from her, not coverage about her so also not good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NIO. Sources provided here are insufficient per above. Admittedly, it was difficult to search for coverage due to the large amount of articles she wrote. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:33, 20 December 2023 (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.