Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Beasley


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim Beasley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. 2602:306:CE9A:860:3188:950A:58FA:5B45 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Searches of news sources in US, particularly around St. Louis where one of her businesses is located, did not reveal much, including a mostly unfiltered search (using Agage3 and CustomizeWordPress to filter out different Kim Beasleys) here. I found one source (Entrepreneur magazine) which I added but the rest of the 'sources' do not meet the reliable criteria, so we're not meeting the GNG here, so the page seems basically like an advertisement for her business.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2014 (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.