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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Doane[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poor referencing on a blp article. Most of the coverage seems to mentions of other folks. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does have signs consistent with PROMO, including that the founding acct (which has worked substantially only on one other article, which also may have the same problem as this one) has rotated a series of commercial photographs of the subject through the article's history. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (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.