Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Robinson (author)


 * 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 no consensus. Neither the keep or delete votes are particularly convincing (the former ones mostly given weakly). There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus at this time other than that she may scrape WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sheila Robinson (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Current sources shows borderline notabilty, Fails WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable writer and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep She is a notable person and has been featured on many independent notable sources like Forbes, CNN and Wall Street Journal. Yoziak (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Being "featured" in Forbes is basically like saying "but they have an approved Facebook account!" For the right amount of money, Forbes will pretty much publish anything. CUPIDICAE💕  18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete and redirect to the magazine. CUPIDICAE💕  18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Current sources seems somewhat promising to pass WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - in the publishing world, there are few publishers who are notable, and I think she passes barely. I am leaning keep to avoid our inherent bias. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (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.