articles For Deletion/Jeannette H. Lee

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.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette H. Lee

Jeannette H. Lee (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)

Does not appear to be notable, and connected to two red-linked companies (not necessarily non-notable, but probably). Article makes a claim of importance (CEO, won an award from a magazine), so is not speedily deletable. One article in a non-trivial publication focuses entirely on her. I'm looking in results of various Google searches and not seeing much else; just lots of social profiles, entries in businesspeople indexes, and false positives. I did clean up the article a bit (it was originally mostly a copy-paste from one of cited sources). There's not much there, though the two sources can be used to provide additional details, like education. The problem is lack of additional coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The award-granting magazine may have done an article on her. Our article was created by someone who never made another edit [1] and is presumably the subject or someone close to the subject. The local-government source cited is obviously just regurgitating from a self-authored bio. I was going to WP:PROD this, but I have enough of a suspicion that there might be some additional material on this person that AfD seems more appropriate, especially since the material we have dates to between 11 and 20 years ago, so Ms. Lee White may have gone on to bigger-better things. Maybe the WP:WPWIR folks have good resources for salvaging such articles; I listed this AfD in their deletion tracker. PS: I've opened an RM at Talk:Jeannette Lee, that will move this article to Jeannette Lee White if it is kept, to match info in the decade-newer source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC), updated 10:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the assumption that more sources can be found, I may change my vote if they can't, but that magazine coverage is a good thing to start with. Initial searches (and the noms wp:before) were almost certainly hampered by the incorrect title. "Jeannette Lee White", reveals: [2] [3] [4] [5] this very good ref (page 362 of American Women Leaders: 1,560 Current Biographies, By Carol Hooks Hawkins [6]) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. I could probably find more if I really had to, this was from a quick google (with the correct name). Dysklyver 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Google gives plwnty of hitsBabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've gone through the new sources mentioned above and most of them are mentions-in-passing, "who's who" material, regurgitation of Lee's own official bio or her company's press releases, rehash of Working Woman material already cited, local papers, parroting WP's own article, etc. But the second Washington Post piece is a real, focused article in a major paper. Combined with the other good source already cited, this seems marginally enough to keep, if the article is actually improved with this material. One of them, the more recent company press release, is good enough as a primary source for what company she works at now (well, as of 2016) and that she's back to using Lee (seems to satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF). Should probably be moved to Jeannette H. Lee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources to prove notability exist. As long as that's the case, it doesn't matter whether they're actually in the article, contrary to SMcCandlish's assertion. Smartyllama (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (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.