Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Danziger


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Susan Danziger

 * – ( View AfD View log )

almost all of the links in the article are dead. There is 1 article that can count towards WP:GNG and that's source 11. Nothing else found that can establish notability here. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Updated links, none should be dead anymore. Tennesseerudolphs — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for updating the links. Source 1, 2 and 3 does not mention her, just mentions the organizations. Source 4 is a Crunchbase profile. Source 5 lacks depth. Source 6 is trivial near the bottom of the article. Source 7 is another Crunchbase profile. Source 8 is trivial. Source 9 is a trivial mention of topic's name near bottom of page. Source 10 is from topic's own website. Source 11 is still the best one in my opinion, and can count towards WP:GNG. Source 12 is link to her bio as she is a contributor to Forbes, which would honestly have me take a closer look at 11 and the relationship there. Source 13 and 14, and 16 are trivial again, simply stating her name/company in article. Source 15 is an interview without an editor's name to it at women2.com. I don't think that passes as a verified source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think if you look at WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, it states: Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable. Obviously, the topic isn't so I'm going to let the nomination stand because I'm not seeing anything notable enough to warrant inclusion into the encyclopedia, and frankly the article reads like a resume/self promotion. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:31, 15 April 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.