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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Papp[edit]

Clear self-promotion as every external link has a connection to her (WP:BIO requires verification with citation from independent reliable sources); in places, this reads as a resume; at other places, it reads like a magazine article. Prodded, tag removed by User:Oo7565. B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet the notability requirements, although the article is very spammy as it stands, it shouldn't be hard to clean up to acceptable standards. Themfromspace (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on finding reliable sources independent of Ms. Papp. B.Wind (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - but that's mostly opinion. Article is very promotional, and comes off as WP:COI. At best, rewrite it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes have been made to begin process of making more Wiki correct article. Self-promotion aspects and excessive external links toned down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.49.45 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) — 208.127.49.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails the third party coverage criteria. Very limited coverage as indicated by Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Michellecrisp - fails 3rd party and is a pretty clear example of self-promotion. But, if article is retained, will need a thorough rewrite. Twilight1701 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wiki, regarding biographies of living persons: "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed." Ms. Papp's article and biographical information can be verified via her personal website referenced on the page. Per Wiki, regarding using the subject as a self-published source: "Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs." Granted the page previously failed the test of perhaps leaning toward the "unduly self-serving" provision, but the page has been re-written with a more factual tone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.78.123 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 November 2008 UTC)
- It's still an autobiography that has more spam than Hormel. It still fails WP:BIO and WP:N as it lacks coverage from reliable, third-party, independent sources. She wrote the article and she took the photo that appears there (any doubts? Click the photo and read the release). Wikipedia is not a resume service, and I strong urge a deletion to remove this page of self-promotion. Delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2008 (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.