Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Henry

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. This article has never been deleted before, at least not at this page title, so I'll refrain from salting the page.

Bearian, contact me if you are serious about wanting to devote your valuable online time to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Henry

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification, twice.

WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; the Forbes piece aside, none of the sources contribute towards notability. Fails
WP:BIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete UPE copied out of Afc when it was rank. Fails
WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – doesn't meet
WP:GNG; lack of coverage in independent, secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt she sold a bunch of shares recently and is quoted in a few articles. Nothing about her as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails
Wikipedia:BIO and do not have any citation that comply with WP:RS.AndrewYuke (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Userfy. The article is currently a
mess that would be normally destroyed, but her roles in several corporate boards at least hint that she's notable. If nobody else will work on it, I would be willing to work on it over the holidays. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearian Your opinion is very much respected. And the outcome could well be the one you suggest. May I ask you to consider that this is already a disputed draftification, and to consider whether the improvements you hope for will happen? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't promise that this will be done by December 31, 2022, Timtrent, so if the consensus is to delete it, so be it. Bearian (talk)

Delete and salt. Poorly written and even more poorly sourced article. Another amateur attempt to establish presence on Wikipedia by any means.--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.