Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Aubale Epstein


 * 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__. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Megan Aubale Epstein

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

This is an article for a non-notable real estate agent in the USA. All of the citations seem to be to SEO churnalism sources; reprinters of press releases. Wikipedia should not be an extension of an SEO operation. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, California, New York,  and Tennessee.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 23:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and current status.. The article does not establish the notability of its subject per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The references provided appear to be weak and some primary sponsored content, which do not qualify as independent, reliable sources offering significant coverage (WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). The article resembles a promotional resume rather than an encyclopedic entry, lacking the depth and standard of coverage necessary for a standalone article. Will say, @Tagishsimon nom, could have been slightly better.
 * Reference [1 ] is a sponsored segment, other sources such as Bizjournals, are a trade pub, that merely mention one award. I couldn't find any other sources of notability on the subject. PD Slessor (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete using churn for coverage, not independent or truly secondary. Not notable. microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 14:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - (1) run of the mill business person; (2) one whole section is unreferenced with any significant coverage, while (3) one point of contention ("counsel") is internally contradicted. Even if she was notable, it would have to be entirely written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 19 December 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.