- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lian Pham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
paid for spam, sourced to the typical PR puffery, non notable author/entrepreneur Praxidicae (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Patent WP:PROMO nonsense and new-age Silicon Valley psychobabble is better suited for LinkedIn. KidAd talk 22:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Highly promotional and sourced to lots of ancillary coverage. Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. --Kinu t/c 19:16, 3 October 2020 (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.