Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Carter


 * 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. Questionable material has been removed, and even the sole !delete vote concedes that she's notable. Content should be discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandy Carter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable per WP:BIO -- run of the mill business exec. Lots of info not supported by citations, appears to have been edited by the subject herself, and citations included in the article tangentially support the material at best. Yl098098 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Several references in current version of article (July 13 2015) meet WP:RS, plus there are numerous more references here including in-depth treatment as well as quotations. Article is a bit long but that is not a reason for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - there is some evidence of notability, but the current article is still a mess, even after I copy-edited. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and (possibly) rewrite - I think this individual is probably notable, but the current article and its history cannot be kept. The current version appears to be largely copied from this source. Previous versions also contain apparent copyvio - compare this version with this source, for example. I don't see evidence that these sources have been appropriately licensed for reuse. As far as I can tell, there is some degree of copyvio going back to the first revision, although it was less blatant then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have removed copyvio material which was also promotional. There appears to be consensus that the refs establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2015 (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.