Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, academic and non-winning candidate for political office, which is written with a decidedly advertorial résumé slant and referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. As always, none of her three job titles confer an automatic notability freebie on a person just because she exists; she must be the subject of adequate reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, and the writing tone must be neutral and encyclopedic, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is referenced. The comments below speak to potential benefits of editing the tone of the text, not to deleting the content. Deletion would be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:50B:1FFE:81A4:5913:5557 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * — 2620:22:4000:50B:1FFE:81A4:5913:5557 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The article is referenced to primary sources that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media. It takes the latter kind of sourcing, not the former, to get someone included on here. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promo, almost entirely OR, with no acceptable sourcing, of a recently-minted PhD. The SPA account that created this article was unsuccessful in creating a companion article on the subject's husband...which matters only indirectly in that it suggests the either vanity or promotional purpose of the article. Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. One book with only 22 cites on GS. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. As a lawyer, she does not have sufficient factors to pass my usual standards. As a politician, she fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. As an academic, she's not tenured, so fails WP:PROF. Combined, I don't even see how she passes WP:GNG. Please, convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for many, many reasons (GNG/PROF/WP:NPOL) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2017 (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.