Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynda Weinman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lynda Weinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The article is poorly referenced with some dubious claims and lacks notablity tagged since October 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seen as an authority on web design, with several known books in the field. Her website, Lynda.com, was featured in Forbes. Cleanup dubious claims.--Sethacus 21:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Lacks verifiability in reliable secondary sources, a problem that appears (based upon my own efforts) difficult to rectify. If this problem can be resolved, then it may be notable enough to warrant keeping and NPOV-ifiying. Jakew 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although the article could be better written it shouldn't detract from the fact that Lynda Weinman has been at the forefront of CBT both on her website and via computer videos. She is certainly notable from that standpoint alone. She's taught me a thing or two :) WebHamster 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very well-known designer, teacher and author and authority in multiple fields. I'll do some work on the article, could be difficult but I'm sure she is notable at least. --Canley 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , article was in a sorry state but she appears to be notable regardless. Mathmo Talk 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in reliable sources means no way to verify any of the claims made. Non-notable self-promotion. Valrith 17:59, 12 August 2007 (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.