Deletion of Cheryl Bachelder

Comment: Passes . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: for passing  and .  ''Forbes'' wrote an article about herhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/whitneyjohnson/2016/07/18/cheryl-bachelder-cooking-up-success-with-failure-louisiana-style/#7493c29570b4, ''Fortune'' interviewed herhttp://fortune.com/2015/11/13/popeyes-minimum-wage-fast-food/ and ''The New York Times'' published one she wrote about herself.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/jobs/02boss.html She was the President of KFC and the CEO of Popeye's, two household names
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:DCOI||WP:COINOTBIAS)