Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Souâd Benkredda

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. If anyone would like to work on this article to improve it, I'm willing to restore it to Draft space on request where it can be submitted to WP:AFC for review to see if can overcome problems pointed out in this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Souâd Benkredda

[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)

Non-notable business person. Article is largely sourced to lists of "100 best people" or the like; no other sources found beyond linkedin or various mentions of positions they've held. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear participants of the discussion,

As an employee of DZ BANK, I would like to participate in this discussion and explain the measures we have taken to prevent the deletion of our board member Souâd Benkredda’s entry. Initially, we made content additions and added additional objective sources such as German business newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Börsen-Zeitung, Bloomberg Television, and the Expert Commission on Stock Exchange to avoid the impression that Ms. Benkredda is only listed in overview lists. Her contributions in the mentioned media outlets, as well as her involvement in the Expert Commission on Stock Exchange, demonstrate her expertise and influence in the financial industry. These references have been accordingly included under “References” and can be found in the relevant section.

Now, I would like to specifically address the accusation of “orphan” status. To refute this allegation, we have created a direct link from our company website ("Executive Board of DZ Bank with Vita S. Benkredda". DZ Bank.) to the English Wikipedia entry of Souâd Benkredda. In addition, we will also link to other relevant Wikipedia entries so that the entry can no longer be viewed in isolation.

I hope these measures contribute to classifying the entry as relevant for the Wikipedia community and prevents its deletion. Dzbank-kmmo (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you read WP:COI. Editing with a conflict of interest is not strictly prohibited, but you must stick to WP:NPOV with utmost diligence. By the way, orphan, in Wikipedia lingo, means there are no other articles which link to this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference to WP:COI, which I have read carefully. I understand the importance of complying with WP:NPOV and will ensure that we will make all edits in accordance with this policy. Dzbank-kmmo (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A possibly reliable independent source: fax.net article Gab4gab (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Possible COI issues, but [1] and [2] do appear to be non-trivial independent coverage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. One of the sources presented in the weak keep doesn't appear independent (the 40 over 40) and the faz.net could be okay, but I can't completely tell due to language issues. Even assuming it is there's not enough here to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say the 40 over 40 source is not independent? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an orphan and its meeting of GNG is questionable. Referring to rationale of the nominator, the sources in the article are shaky, beyond some standard coverage for corporate businesspeople. DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2023 (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.