Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Van Zeeland

:{{la|Ashley Van Zeeland}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashley_Van_Zeeland Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ashley Van Zeeland}})

No indication of notability, no independent coverage in reliable sources beyond "said Ashley Van Zeeland". The current content is unduly promotional. See also User talk:Aphende. Huon (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep possibly although I'm also not entirely sure as I easily found some links at Books, News, Highbeam and Scholar (?, lists as Ashley Scott-Van Zeeland). Pinging past users {{U|Primefac}} and {{U|Moonriddengirl}} and also subject users {{U|Doc James}}, {{U|Anthony Bradbury}} and {{U|Drchriswilliams}}. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• It appears to be a more or less unreffed BLP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are plenty of News hits, they are all about her company and none of them give more than a passing mention of her (on top of "...said Van Zeeland"). The Dickinson Fellowship doesn't appear to be that notable (I actually found more pages on co-authors with Van Zeeland who were also Fellows than pages about her), and so I don't think she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I'm tempted to !vote userfy, as it seems that the creator misunderstood the assignment given to them, but keeping an article on a non-notable person that will never be a Wikipedia page simply for a grade seems like false charity. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I took a look for references to her in books and articles, and added relevant citations. Her work on Autism and Anorexia is significant, and I've expanded that a bit. More could be done, but hopefully this helps to support this as a "keep". Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, and thanks of the community to {{u|Mary Mark Ockerbloom}} for the improvements. — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - sufficient improvements made Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Week keep. I don't believe the subject's h-index ... quite rises to the usual level we require for PROF C1, but the Arnold book reference, the Science Daily coverage, and the publication record strike me as getting toward GNG. The article does have problems, several of the sources are warmed-over corporate press releases whose use should be kept in check only to document claims about what the company says about itself. --joe decker^talk 18:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.