Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Johnson Woodruff


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Carolyn Johnson Woodruff

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Full of press-releases and sps sources to support framework with no real encyclopedic content.  scope_creep Talk  18:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Was hoping the books would make her notable, the only mentions I can find in newspapers are obituaries. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if there was two or three of them, but she doesn't seem still to be alive, although I'm not sure?   scope_creep Talk  11:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Her law firm website profile indicates she is alive, but the mix of primary sources, press releases, brief mentions and brief burst of coverage related to her legislative advocacy, e.g. , , , , do not appear sufficient to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or any other form of notability pursuant to our guidelines. I have also not found evidence that her legislative proposal was successful, or independent secondary coverage of the Woodruff Ensley Foundation. In my review of the article, it also appears that many claims that might help support WP:BASIC notability are not sourced or supported by the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks independent, in-depth coverage supporting that WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2021 (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.