Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Fletcher


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Molly Fletcher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a businessperson and motivational speaker. While she might certainly be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, the referencing here is parked almost entirely on primary sources like her own website and a YouTube video of her giving a TEDx talk; the only piece of media coverage shown here is not enough to get her over WP:GNG by itself, and is being used to source one of the most blatantly advertorial statements in the entire article rather than any of the content that might make her eligible to have one. Also possible conflict of interest, as the original creator has never made any edits to Wikipedia under that user name about any other topic. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The page needs some cleanup and additional independent sources for verification but subject is borderline notable. I've added ESPN piece on her. Meatsgains (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional Media Citation Added - I've added another independent print article from Atlanta Business Journal profile of her.  Rokenbk97 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think the article has a promotional tone that needs work, but she has unique accomplishments and the coverage meets GNG.  Montanabw (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is enough significant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, including Detroit Free Press and ESPN. I addressed some of the promotional concerns as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (comment made on 02:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC), but I forgot to sign)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use cleanup and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: my !vote below somehow never registered due to an unnoticed edit conflict about 20 minutes before Looks like there was an edit conflict and somehow my !vote never registered and the AFD was closed before that. Anyway, I'm still pasting it here for the record. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep (borderline) The coverage is not great in terms of numbers, but the sources which are available do have in-depth coverage which is required. What tips me over is that the coverage is not a one time coverage but has been distributed over a period of time. Although one of them is essentially an interview, the sources are still adequate.
 * ESPN - Reliable and in-depth coverage.
 * 2005 ESPN coverage - brief coverage but explains achievements and shows that there is a certain enduring claim of significance.
 * CNBC - Reliable and actually explains the subject's role in the incident.
 * Detriot Free Press - This is essentially an interview so I don't really use this source for notability. But it seems that she has received attention as an author for her book. (See this as well).
 * The rest of the sources like the Business Journal and the Forbes/sites (note: these are not Forbes article, they are simply user contributed content) cannot be used for notability purposes per WP:SPIP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:10, 26 September 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.