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. Based on the discussion, it seems like the only sources available are not independent, not reliable or too trivial to establish that GNG is met. The interview for example based on E.M.Gregory's comments appears to be mainly about a different topic, with little contradictions offered here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Richardson (financial expert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Over the top Promotion for Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources, mostly primary, but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of this person. PR is not independent. Quotes from her are not coverage about her. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it needs editing like no ones business but the subject does appear to be notable. Simply being biased and over the top promotional isn’t grounds for deletion if WP:GNG is met and there appear to be at least a half dozen reliable ones among the 64 sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete scores of sources, but they all seem to be PRIMARY, or press releases, or announcements that she is speaking on some panel or show. If she's notable, there should be profiles of her. Delete as PROMO. However, If someone can find 3 solid pieces of WP:SIGCOV, please ping me and I will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For now, at least. The attempts at notability are grasping for straws going off the sources given. Trillfendi (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Look encyclopedic but requires proper rewrite to suit neutral point of view. Germcrow (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Germcrow, User talk:Horse Eye Jack, would you be willing top point out 3 or 4 WP:RS that qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not going to click on each of the links because I don’t have the time but www.njtvonline.org/news/uncategorized/newark-pastor-host-inaugural-business-expo-women-color-mc-lyte-keynote/ (2018), Jet Magazine (November 2007), and NPR (2013) are reliable sources that cover more than a decade. www.foxla.com/good-day-la/240289694-video, alruckershow.com/guest/dr-lynn-richardson/, and www.blackenterprise.com/sistahs-in-business-expo/ all seem to indicate that she is well known and regarded as an expert within her field. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed entire sections of speeches and seminars sourced only to the org. sponsoring the event. Have not yet culled the section about her media appearences (2nd paragraph of "Career"), although it contains stuff like an appearance on some show sourced to a page called Welcome to Lynn Richardson’s W.E.A.L.T.H. University - this is classic PROMO. The sources you cite are interviews she gave offering financial advice. Did you find and interviews about her? Your link to [1] is PRIMARY, a notice on the website of an organization about Richardson appearing at an event that org sponsored. I note that subhead "Personal life" has no sources at all. The books have almost no sources - can anyone find book reviews or WP:RS about her books? The NPR interview is about a scholarship she co-founded with a notable rap artist, "Here to tell us more about the Hip Hop Sisters is its president Lynn Richardson. Lynn, welcome." Richardson then talks briefly about the scholarship. JET ran a snippet bio in an issue in which she had written a piece on financial advice. These potted author bios (usually written by the writer herself) are PRIMARY. This is NOT WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the interview on a local fox affiliate is a usable source [2] It's about a book she co-authored with MC Lyte. As is the brief mention on a N.J. station [3] There is also a bit of coverage about the scholarship she established with MC Lyte. What we lack is the kind of WP:SIGCOV that passs WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For me radio interviews are significant coverage especially when the interview is with a state broadcaster like NPR, I see no reason to favor other forms of media over radio. Being interviewed about an organization one is the president of isn’t exactly a trivial mention either, I’m confused as to why you think the quote "Here to tell us more about the Hip Hop Sisters is its president Lynn Richardson. Lynn, welcome.” proves the coverage is trivial rather than significant. I also feel like WP:NOTCLEANUP is relevant now that we’ve established that some of the sources are WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because a.) the interview is not about her,it's just her and a student promoting a new scholarship she co-founded with a donor. and b.) the scholarship appears to have been active for exactly one-year, at least, I am not seeing coverage beyond that year. and c.) it was generous of MC Lyte to donate a scholarship, and Richardson got press by promoting it, but it is not enough to carry her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that page creator User talk:Amandadoyle543 is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest. After this AfD began, Amandadoyle543 removed large swaths of material form the page [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Some good sources out there. But needs moreLaosilika (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources are you seeing that meet WP:SIGCOV? Note that being interviewed by a journalist ≠ notability. She fails WP:BASIC; we can't even find sources to source her place of residence, education, or occupational history - or sources to show that her consulting business as passing WP:ORG, or that her books pass WP:NBOOK. She is a has given interviews - so does my accountant, who has a column in a couple of local papers. Fails WP:BASIC].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Still hunting for notability, I took a look at the "Awards" section. The Chicago Defender, a venerable black newspaper, selects 2 - 3 dozen excellent black women to honour every year with its Women of Excellence award. (Chicago is a big city with lots of excellent black women.) One year they honoured Richardson [5]. Being one of a sizeable group of women honoured by a local newspaper in a particular year ≠ notability. Please ping me if somebody finds WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - no significant contribution - article seems promotional - not notable - Epinoia (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2019 (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.