Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Adachi

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 keep. With additional sources brought forward in discussion, subject appears to meet WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Adachi

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

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

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No acceptable claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do sometimes wonder if anyone does a thorough WP:BEFORE. I have edited the article and added some sources. There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in the journals Consulting Magazine and The Glass Hammer, and the book Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World, and You. The awards listed in the article may not meet WP:ANYBIO, but they did result in coverage of this person, so that she does meet WP:GNG. I am still looking for sources, and will add more as I find them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources added to the article. A source review from other users would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm often frustrated by the fact that a very strict interpretation of our rules requires us to delete articles about intelligent, accomplished and successful people but keep the list of crayola crayon colours, biographies of bigfoot "investigators" and that article about the precognitive octopus. I'll choose to believe that Rebecca Green's revamp is sufficient to demonstrate notability in this case even if it might still be possible for a strict deletionist to quibble.—S Marshall T/C 17:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I wouldn't have accepted this article for inclusion in Wikipedia if I did not think (1) she met GNG and (2) the article could be improved and expanded. Missvain (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are quite clear about her relevance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 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.