Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Breakenridge


 * 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 keep. Per WP:HEY by and ; while the strong consensus that the subject passes NAUTHOR, which is no longer challenged, is not a guarantee of notability, there was also zero consensus to Delete. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Deirdre Breakenridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Cannot find reviews in RSs for her books either. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Adjunct professor at best, not "professor" as stated in the article. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of her works. Concerns of PROMO can be dealt with through tags and edits per WP:ATD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , what reviews? Would it be possible to link them here or add them to the article please? Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks like the reviews are in the article. Look at the references: they're there in bullet points under the current note 11. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just added 8 reviews. There may be others. Most are accessible through subscriptions to academic databases. TJMSmith (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment If she's notable as an author, the page should so reflect. The career section was close to a copyvio, and way promotional.  I edited boldly, and replaced with a NPOV summary of her career arc. , perhaps you (or someone else) could add a paragraph about her books and their notability?  I'm not quite sure what it should say. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The reviews can be used to summarize/explain the reception of her works. TJMSmith (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Article now demonstrates a pass of WP:AUTHOR and the more spammy and promotional sources and claims have been removed, making it appropriately neutral. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per AUTHOR. Plenty of reviews of her work in multiple RS over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The WP:NAUTHOR case looks good. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY; good work by and . Bearian (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:AUTHOR per refs. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2019 (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.