Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline P. Kane


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jacqueline P. Kane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Puff piece for a non-notable corporate executive. In view of the author's other articles it looks like a paid piece to me. Author's SPI for (talk)  06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per LaMona, but the sockpuppery also is a minus. Weak Keep (tentative) but also pinging  and  for review of sources. This is a person with a 38-year corporate career, I think we are a bit past a puff piece, though a review for neutral tone would be well-advised and I would agree that a sockpuppet paid PR account would be grounds for deletion as a penalty for gaming the system regardless of the merits of the piece. I guess that if we have a paid piece, yes, it has to go, but if we don't, then let's review it on its merits.  Montanabw (talk)  21:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be important to me to ascertain if this is a paid piece. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , Would this diff from one of the AfDs of the puppetmaster's other articles provide the evidence you seek? for (talk)  07:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  06:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  06:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. promotional and no real notability. This is an internal corporate bio, which would be appropriate for their own website but not for an encyclopedia . "Kane led the board through a multi-year succession planning processes which culminated in the seamless transition of the executive committee" (as head of Human Resources)  No doubt several other executives have equal claims to the same thing-- and the reference used does not even mention her. Essentially everything else is a mere press release, or was written by the company.    DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete--promotional piece for a person who does not seem notable to me. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep She has a Bloomberg and a Crunchbase profile, which counts for something. On the other hand the article is a bit too promotional. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * HappyValleyEditor - note that CrunchBase allows you to create your own profile and to edit profiles. I don't know if there is any kind of editorial control, but I've seen profiles for companies where the contributors to the profile are the company officers themselves. Right on the front page Crunchbase has a "contribute" button that says: "Build your profile and get in front of millions of users." I think we should declare Crunchbase a kind of IMDb for businesses. I can't find more about Bloomberg profiles because one of their (#*$(# popups covers part of the screen. LaMona (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * LaMona, thanks for the tip, I shall change to Weak Delete in that case. Re the pop-overs, hitting commmand-period very fast (on a Mac) as the page loads stops the popover script. Takes some practice. Works on the NYTIMEs, facilitating better wiki research access.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Very much a puff piece, with a considerable effort to make minor accomplishments, like getting a bachelor's degree, seem more important than they are. I got 404's from Bloomberg, Walker Research and her Uni; a blank screen from www.execrank.com/ (which one can easily read as "exe crank"). The rest is from her employer, or listing her as being on boards. Definitely not notable. LaMona (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG and LaMona; and thank you to For for the diff. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Confirmed sock-puppetry, undisclosed paid editing a near-certainty (see Articles for deletion/John Lincoln (telecommunications)). Delete without prejudice to re-creation by a non-conflicted editor if notability can be established (which at the moment seems unlikely, but that could change). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2016 (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.