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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeisha Marion[edit]

Lakeisha Marion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The individual seems to be non-notable. The six sources in the article each appear to be paid, to come from unreliable sources, or to be primary-source interviews--none of which contribute towards meeting WP:NBASIC.

• AccessWire is a public relations wire service.
• Face2Face Africa is owned by a marketing firm.
• "Disruptors Magazine" seems to be a contributors blog, a-la-WP:FORBESCON, though potentially with more paid content.
• LA Progressive is a political group blog, and the post is marked at the bottom as sponsored content.
• Khaleej Times is an unbylined extremely primary source interview.
• This is 50 seems to be written by Hardcore Flava, which appears to be a fake name.

Trolling through google, I found a labeled opinion piece (looks like a Forbes Contributor-style situation) in Entrepreneur that isn't written by a journalist. I also found a piece by "The Daily Front Row" that is both unbylined and an extremely primary source interview.

The current status of the page is that it is a stub that comes off as extremely advertorial--half of the two sentences are dedicated to labeling her as being among the top female producers in her industry without any real support from RS, while the infobox "occupation" field feels like I am reading part of a LinkedIn page.

For the reason that Marion fails WP:BASIC and all other notability criteria for living people, I suggest that we delete this article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yes, the sources are awful, and looking at her work as an author, there seems a bias towards self-publishing in places that offer no quality control (e.g. CreateSpace). There is nothing in the current one-line, one-photo-and-a-load-of-links article that is in any way salvageable. Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate sourcing. Her work as a writer is not turning out significant works for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of paid PR, but nothing in the way of RS to support an article. --Kbabej (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2022 (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.