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. ✗ plicit 23:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Shelley Sullivan

Shelley Sullivan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Hopelessly promotional and so minimally notable (if at all) to be not worth fixing. Most of the references are promotional or trivial material. Most of the content is, correspondingly, trivial or promotional material.

The original editor in 2007 was a single purpose editor who has not contributed anything else at all almost all subsequent edits were made by a succession of other spas, culminating in someone whose username was so obvious as to attract attention, (Rebecca Sullivan ModelCo ) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete probable WP:COI editing. Fails WP:BIO. Most of her awards are not notable. LibStar ( talk) 23:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Libstar - fails WP:BIO and likely COI editing. Deus et lex ( talk) 00:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are the awards notable, or just padding the article. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Oaktree b: they just seem to be padding. If you do some research, the way some of the awards are referenced in the article make it look like they are more prestigious than they actually are - e.g. the subject of the article didn't actually receive the national Businesswoman of the Year award by Telstra in 2004, she just received a "Telstra Business Owner Award" (search this link to see - she's under Shelley Williams); similarly the EY Entrepeneur of the Year award is an international award, but she only received a "Young Entrepreneur" award and it was only the Australian award (and neither of them are referenced on the main awards page). Obtaining the top award in either category would be notable but I don't think the two awards she has received of themselves are enough to keep the article. Deus et lex ( talk) 22:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete- per nom. Agree she fails WP:GNG; agree WP:COI; agree page created/developed by WP:SPA. Also note page appears deliberately curated so as to appear to pass GNG. Cabrils ( talk) 00:39, 14 January 2022 (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.