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. Seems like the sources are either not independent or not substantial enough and the article overly promotional based on the consensus here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Tenner

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article for Non notable "event pro of the year" , written by declared pad editor for a cliet (or former client). Organized conferences, wrote one chapter of one book, consulted for various people/ Not a single reliable third party source--nearest is an advertorial in Las Vegas Review-Journal. Previous afd was non-consensus/ DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Promotional article created by paid editor. Sourcing is poor.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Nothing even close to showing notability. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep [1] appears to be a reliable independent source as does [2]. [3] is a reliable source that provides a bit of coverage and there are links to sources that sound reasonable but aren't available on-line. Looks to meet WP:N, though also seems far too promotional. Also finding _lots_ of passing mentions in books. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She works in the poker industry , not very surprising from someone in Las Vegas, so her PR agent placed an article in Poker News. Similarly the others read as obvious advertorials. Furthermore, being highly promotion, to the point that rewriting beyond routine editing is necessary, is by itself a sufficient reason for deletion--even speedy deletion by G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete paid PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Promotionalism only for an nn individual. The Review Journal article ([4]) does not appear to be a reliable independent source as it's advertorially-toned and is based on the interview with the subject. The other sources are WP:SPIP as well. Should have been deleted at the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are discounting an article from the Las_Vegas_Review-Journal because you don't like it tone? Oyi. Hobit (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discounting it because it's based on the interview with the subject. It's not a source that's intellectually independent of the subject, hence it's not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2017 (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.