Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Isaacson


 * 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. sufficient unopposed consensus after relisting  DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Emily Isaacson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is written in a self-promotional tone and appears more like a resumé than a reference article. Sources for this article are of unknown quality, since they are not completed bibliographic entries and do not contain URLs. They seem non-notable and non-reliable. Thus, article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Even as incomplete references lacking the title and publication date of the source content, it's still evident that six of the eight "sources" are to local community weekly newspapers which are not widely distributed (or widely archived) enough to satisfy WP:GNG, while the other two are to her own books and thus get clobbered as primary sources. While the overall tone isn't as blatantly advertorial as I would have expected in something like this, it still pretty obviously tilts in a PR/advertorial direction — there's just too damn much entirely unsourced "personal life" detail of the type that, given the paucity of actual WP:RS coverage, could only be collated by knowing, or at least directly interviewing, the subject personally. Strictly speaking, the fact that there aren't convenience URLs present in the references isn't relevant, because we are allowed to cite stuff to print-only content like old newspaper articles or books, but the fact that they're local community weekly newspapers (as well as incomplete references that are still missing necessary details) does weaken them. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Regrettably, sources for this post-modern nutritionist are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat -- I'm not bothered that there are not online citations; I'm bothered that even in her self-promotional Emily Isaacson Institute website and her many blogs on so many subjects she hasn't found better citations. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (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.