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 no consensus. Verging on keep; most editors feel that the promotionalism issue can be (or has now been) addressed through editing.  Sandstein  09:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Cheryl Bachelder

Cheryl Bachelder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Clearest case of G11 for a BLP I've ever seen, but that was declined and the SPA creator contested the PROD. Notability doesn't even come into the picture here: WP:NOTSPAM and WP:DEL4 apply. The only purpose of this article is to promote the subject and it would need to be entirely rewritten to be in line with the fundamental principle of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an advertising platform. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep TonyBallioni, you link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#4 as a reason to delete. This reads "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content." There is no advertising or spam here, only text about Bachelder's work which is referenced to and supported by high-quality mainstream sources, including Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, etc. of which there are plenty more besides those currently referenced – just use the news tab in your own nomination. I don't see how you can say that the current text isn't relevant or encyclopedic content. It describes exactly what she is known for as is reflected in the sources. Have you read them?

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen is a major chain and Bachelder ran it for ten years. Business writers tend to judge things by the numbers and the numbers were phenomenal, so their reviews tend to reflect that bias. It sounds like you are saying that if the sources are positive, the subject must be deleted because otherwise it would be promotional. If we can find negative or just skeptical sources, their opinions should also be included here, assuming that they meet the source requirements and biographies policies.

Bachelder was previously president of KFC, and by her own account failed in this post, which she discusses as a learning experience. [1] There is probably more written about that somewhere. This material should be added to the article. She wrote a good deal about her early life and career in the New York Times and this too should probably be represented in some form. Again, there are dozens of pieces in well-known outlets which have not yet been used here. It sounds like you haven't read anything but are just saying that you don't like it. South by southwest ( talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: South by southwest has made only 7 edits and is the author of Cheryl Bachelder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I am not nominating this for deletion on the basis of notability, which is a guideline. I am nominating it for deletion based on our policy on excluding promotion, whlch is also just as much a part of the notability guideline as the sourcing requirements are (see point 2 in WP:N). Your response here shows that you are on Wikipedia with the intent of promoting the subject, and further strengthens the case for deletion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Tony, I responded here because you asked me to. You also asked me to post to the discussion page of the article. I did, but you never replied. It's not clear how anything in this link of yours is applicable. I don't even know Cheryl Bachelder except from reading about her. No one paid me to write about her, and promoting her is not the reason I am on Wikipedia. I added an internal link to the article from Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc. because the "orphaned" banner asked people to do this.

If you feel that the coverage of Bachelder in the sources referenced is unduly positive, it seems to me that the right solution is to find sources which are more critical to balance them out. I have already suggested one vein of further research, about her failed stint as president of KFC. Perhaps you can think of another. Or maybe you can write something yourself and get it published, then we can include a summary of your criticisms and attribute them to you. Any of these would seem more constructive than deleting well-referenced material about a person who very easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. South by southwest ( talk) 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Properly sourced. No worse than many other biographies of business people. The only issue here seems to be that it was created by an editor without a long editing history, which is only an issue if one is looking at the editors rather than the articles. Our readers don't come here to look at the backgrounds of editors. They come for the information contained in the articles. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as an obvious vanity piece for the promotion of the BLP subject. It's little more than a CV - like a social media entry - and doesn't even include any traditional bio information. It is a vehicle for spam for her companies. See WP:DCOI and WP:COINOTBIAS. That makes it a clear G11 and just a plethora of sources never alone adds up to notability anyway. Whether or not it applies here, and whether or not the article passes notability and/or MoS standards, the article also has all the hallmarks of having been written by the subject's employee, PR agency, or an otherwise regular Wikipedia editor plying their wares. A practice which is not only a COI, but a conflict with policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Blatant promotion It is absolutely impossible that anyone but a pr flack would write "Bachelder's career path stands out somewhat among those of high-powered executives for having been interpersed with several periods working as a full-time mother and homemaker". Not even the person herself would write that. No naive volunteer copying our sometimes promotional articles would put in something as bad as that. I am thinking of speedying as deliberate violation of tou, which I consider one form of vandalism. She probably is notable enough for an article, but we delete vandalism, not try to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • • ""Bachelder's career path stands out somewhat among those of high-powered executives for having been interpersed with several periods working as a full-time mother and homemaker" Not even the person herself would write that." Actually, Bachelder did pretty much write that in Bloomberg as referenced and attributed. [2] As you can see, the quote "I tell women, Don't be afraid to manage your life" is specifically about this period. South by southwest ( talk) 20:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • My personal favourite was for her trademark style of management, which she calls "servant leadership.", which is clearly something that you would find on the back of a book duskjacket. Given that she is an author who has written a book on the topic, it suggests that the work was in fact written by her publisher or someone related. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • As is clearly referenced, it's from a review of the book in Business Insider. [3] If you read that review, you will find that my excerpt was cursory and understated – there's a lot gushier stuff in there. Personally I agree that the phrase sounds hokey; that's one reason I put it scare quotes. Judging from Goudreau's description it seems to boil down to prioritizing the concerns of franchisees, which matches the themes found in other sources. For example, from the Wall Street Journal: "CEO Cheryl Bachelder Says Rebuilding Trust With Franchisees Was a Key Ingredient" [4] "Trademark" might not be an apt characterization, as the origin of the phrase would appear to be a fellow named Robert K. Greenleaf, see Servant leadership South by southwest ( talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep for passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Forbes wrote an article about her [5], Fortune interviewed her [6] and The New York Times published one she wrote about herself. [7] She was the President of KFC and the CEO of Popeye's, two household names. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Addendum. Also a Business Insider article. [8]

• • None of those being reasons to speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, especially when three editors are advancing a policy-based reason for deletion under WP:N, failure of WP:NOTSPAM to the point of being G11 eligible and meeting WP:DEL4. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • TonyBallioni, once again you are saying things that are demonstrably untrue. You nominated it for WP:G11 speedy deletion. That was declined by an admin. You seem to make a habit of distorting facts in these discussions. Please be more careful. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, and two admins above agree with me that it should be deleted via G11. I'm not destoring the facts: I mentioned in my nomination that it was declined. G11 is an ambiguous criteria and when there are disagreements on that, we sort it out at AfD. I nominated it for deletion here precisely because I thought the decline was inappropriate and wanted to take it to the community for more discussion. This is the appropriate forum for that conversation. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • You are absolutely right. Please accept my sincere apologies. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 03:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There may be a way to write about Bachelder in a non-biased way that creates a reliable article, but this is not it. This is so one sided and promotional, and so full of unexplained buzz words, like "servant leadership" (that also begs for deep religious questions about Bachelder, as they say at get religion, there are religious ghosts all over this article). I think the last sentance sums it up. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, where Bachelder was interviewed, along with dozens of other businesswomen. From the extremely little substantive information I get from this article, I have to say I have postive vibes for Bachelder, but the article is lacking in basic detailed depth. The article is way too plagued with gushing prose to survive. Right now I see no reason that the substantive parts should not be included in the article on Popeyes. A new attempt at an article on Bachelder could be done, but it should deal with her whole life, and if we cannot get insights onto things like her educational background and what motivated her to be a full-time mother, than I question weather she is really truly a public figure to the extent having an article on her is justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "I think the last sentence sums it up. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, where Bachelder was interviewed, along with dozens of other businesswomen." Check the citations, it refers to a book authored by Joann Lublin, who is also the management news editor of the Wall Street Journal. [9] [10] I agree that the article should do a better job of covering aspects of her life besides her career, but how can this be done if it is also deleted? You can edit and add to the prose right now. I've put in a start on what should be a collaborative process. South by southwest ( talk) 04:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Most articles mention personal lives, education, and at least when it is relevant religion. Both "servant leadership" and the decision to be a full-time mother make me suspect there might be strong religious issues involved here, although I could be wrong. Servant leadership is often seen to have deep Christian roots and to derive from a statement by Jesus Christ. From this article it appears that Bachelder appeared fully grown in 1978, at some point left the corporate world to raise some children who we know nothing about, not even their number, and presumably her husband worked full time, but we do not actually know such a man exists, in 1995 she reentered the corporate world, for reasons which are somehow obscure in the case of this allegedly notable person, and was what some would have us believe was a key mover at Dominos Pizza, a company founded by a very devout Catholic, which may or may not be relevant in some way, After being there 5 years, she took the lead at KFC, which is just a divsion of Yum Brands. After 3 years when she seems to have done nothing substantive, she then did nothing of note for 3 years. What is this article not telling us? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • What does any of this have to do with deleting or keeping the article? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Well, I read through Bachelder's Linkedin profile. If "not linkedin" is ground for deletion, than this article needs to go. I did learn some interesting things. She was the General Manager of Life Savers from 1991-1992, after having been VP of Marketing there. At the time Life Savers was owned by RJR Nabisco. From 1993-1994 she lists herself as having been a consultant with Nabisco. There is this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/whitneyjohnson/2016/07/18/cheryl-bachelder-cooking-up-success-with-failure-louisiana-style/#73c8514470b4 from Forbes that admits that Bachelder did poorly at KFC, but tries to downplay that by putting it in quotes. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't a discussion about how well Batchelder did her job. If you have reliable sources that say she did poorly, add those to the article. The question here is whether or not Batchelder is notable enough to merit a biography on Wikipedia. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • No, that is only one question of many that can go into deletion. WP:DEL-REASON lists 13 reasons other than lack of notability for deletion, and this article currently meets at least three of them before even taking into account the question of notability ( WP:DEL1, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14). Johnpacklambert is, from what I can tell, arguing that she is not notable because the coverage is simply run of the mill. He can correct me if I am wrong in my reading. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Obviously it does not violate #1 (since speedy deletion has been declined). We're here to discuss whether #13 (as quoted above) is applicable, so that's out too. #4 cites "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" (bolding mine), which is patently not the case here. So your argument is specious. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • It was a bad G11 decline in my opinion and the opinion of others above, so that is up for discussion, which means DEL1 could apply. DEL4 certainly applies here. DEL14 links to WP:NOT which includes WP:NOTSPAM, something that is much more broad than DEL4 and has been used as rationale for deletion even if the language is neutral, which is patently not the case here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Did you notice the caveat at the beginning of that list? It says "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". In other words, if you think the article is overly promotional, make it less promotional instead of deleting it. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 19:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Provisional Keep the person is likely notable, but the article has serious issues. I think I've improved it enough (and reverted a blatantly promotional version of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc.‎). Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC) (edited Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)) reply
• Keep The G11 was refused. The Prod was refused. And now the AFD will be refused as the subject is clearly notable and AFD is not cleanup. What I tell you three times is true. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. The promotional language has been toned down some, but could still be converted to a more encyclopedic tone in places; however, it's not so blatantly promotional as to require deletion. Passes the WP:GNG but as mentioned above that's uncontested. I'd like to note that the claim that she "developed" servant leadership is demonstrably false — according to our servant leadership article, that management philosophy dates back at least as far as the 1970s — so I'm going to restore the mention of servant leadership but change the verb from "developed" to "followed". — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:50, 21 August 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.