Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Grotts


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Grotts

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of notability. No sources in article are enough to establish notability and all a search threw up (a short one, I had to stop before I threw up) were bubbles of self-published guff. Article creator looks very much like either the subject of this bio or a paid contributor. TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep She's called on by media as an "etiquette expert", and . Her publication in the Reader's Digest article also has some discussion in the media. She might pass as AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Brief mention of the book here Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think that any of those links do anything to establish notability.The firstthree merely quote her; they are not about her. I couldt find the mention in the fourth, but I think it takes more than a mention in an alumnus newletter to establish the notability of a book. Two reviews in independant reputable publications, I believe. TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that the perpetrator of this article (whose editing history- ten edits and then this confection- suggests that they are either Ms Grotts herself or a paid lackey of some stripe) could only come with an Amazon listing and something from a PR company as refs for the "book" (more a booklet; only 58 pages) suggest that there is nothing of any substane out there. Is there a different set of notability criteria for pamphlets?TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. I can only find trivial mentions, nothing that I would consider WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability standards I can think of. Jacona (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2023 (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.