Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leigh Riddick

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Riddick

[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)

Delete, fails WP:PROF. Does not seem to have met the overall level of GNG either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 1st paper, where she's 1st author "The corporate propensity to save" in htis gScholar search [1] is impressive, but overall she does not seem to meet WP:PROF. Please ping me to reconsider if you see persuasive evidence of notability. I'm always willing to take a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any sources discussing Riddick's work as such with depth of coverage despite a reasonably thorough search of Google Scholar and Google Books. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Daask (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.