Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Isaacson
per nom. Even as incomplete references lacking the title and publication date of the source content, it's still evident that six of the eight "sources" are to ''local'' community weekly newspapers which are not widely distributed (or widely archived) enough to satisfy , while the other two are to her own books and thus get clobbered as |primary sources. While the overall tone isn't as ''blatantly'' advertorial as I would have expected in something like this, it still pretty obviously tilts in a PR/advertorial direction — there's just too damn much entirely unsourced "personal life" detail of the type that, given the paucity of actual  coverage, could ''only'' be collated by knowing, or at least directly interviewing, the subject personally. Strictly speaking, the fact that there aren't ''convenience'' URLs present in the references isn't relevant, because we ''are'' allowed to cite stuff to print-only content like old newspaper articles or books, but the fact that they're local community weekly newspapers (as well as incomplete references that are still ''missing'' necessary details) ''does'' weaken them
— User:Bearcat, 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)