Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Workman Benedict

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Workman Benedict

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Dee Workman Benedict (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)

Most likely a case of WP:PROMO by and editor with a WP:COI on a subject who fails WP:NPOL. In a classic case of WP:REFBOMB very few, if any, of the sources actually contribute to WP:GNG. The lead paragraph and headshot are almost a dead giveaway that this article exists mostly for promotional purposes. GPL93 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; clearly promotional in intent. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of entitling her to have a Wikipedia article, but the referencing consists of a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage that is substantively about her for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearcat the "American Political Consultants category is chock full of these PR pieces. It's like a LinkedIn group. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GPL93. Work to be done a-plenty! -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a blatantly promotional text for a BLP about a non-Wikinotable subject who is yet another political operative. The sources cited, as well as those searched for, post nom, range from near-death weak to practically non-existent. E.g. The New York Times are grandly cited, yet, in their report (about voters now focusing less on cadidates' religion in the U.S.) there is one single drop of the subject, describing her as someone who "spent the last several years working to muster support for Mr. Romney among Christian conservatives." From there on it goes downhill as far as verifiable notability is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 26 April 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.