Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Stokes


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 05:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Stokes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find a single independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm new to this and would like to better understand your concerns about sourcing that are noted in the article.
 * With regard to "non-primary" sources being required:
 * Reference 2: BCBusiness is a well-known business publication here in Canada. It's an interview with Caroline Stokes, it's not written by her. Would that not be considered non-primary?
 * The reference to the publisher's website (3) is noted as considered to be a primary source. It's a fact that the book is published by Entrepreneur Press. Is it required, however, that the source be something other than Entrepreneur Press?
 * Reference 5 is noted as "Failed verification". I cannot find a page on Wikipedia that explains this term. The source is HRexecutive.com. Can you please explain what "failed verification" means here?
 * References 7 through 13 are intended to provide evidence for the final sentence that Caroline Stokes is a regular media commentator and contributor, and is it not therefore to be expected that these are what Wikipedia defines as primary sources? Three of these references - from Forbes and Entrepreneur Magazine are in addition flagged as "unreliable". I am unclear why these publications are considered to be unreliable?
 * Thank you for your time. I look forward to your comments.
 * Rvnix (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, coverage is not sufficiently independent for WP:GNG. The coverage in BCBusiness for example is promoting BCBusiness's event where she appears as a speaker. Forbes is self-published. Coverage is promotional, the same as with all executive coaches here at AfD. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Failed verification" is used when an inline citation to a source is given, another editor has checked the source, the source does not support what is contained in the article, and despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic. In this case footnote 5 does not explicitly say that the subject is a certified executive coach, although it does imply that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I have added some new sources in an attempt to address the concerns. I noted the changes in the article history but in summary the new references are as follows:
 * 1) new reference for the founding of FORWARD
 * 2) new references for the publication of the book Elephants Before Unicorns
 * 3) new reference for certified executive coach
 * 4) additional media articles in which the subject is quoted.

In addition, I removed the Forbes articles as sources. I did not yet remove those articles where a non-primary source was noted as being required - it wasn't clear whether primary sources are permitted alongside secondary sources.

Thank you.
 * Rvnix (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too many primary/promotional and unreliable sources. She fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Pamzeis  (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2020 (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.