Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Edwards


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Isha Edwards

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability, and also rather promotional. Article was proposed for deletion by Bgwhite, with the reason given as "A promotional article with a conflict of interest. No reliable, independent sources WP:SOURCES to back any claims or that I could find." That was contested by the author of the article. The article contains 12 external links, evidently intended as sources to show notability. However, most of them do not give substantial coverage to Edwards, but give something between a brief passing mention of her and a couple of quotes from her. Some of them are merely links to lists that mention things she has written. The couple of links which do say more about her are on sites which are not independent reliable sources. For example, there is a page on upstartsmart.com, which appears to be a promotional site, and describes itself as "a resource for small business owners". I have not found any evidence of the sort of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources that are required to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldn't find any references that were about her that were reliable and that wasn't PR. There was a bio at Emory University that stated she was an instructor there.  Majority of External links in the article were written by her or were PR interviews. Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GNG. Purely promotional and likely COI. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:13, 4 November 2011 (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.