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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanne Henry

[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created a couple of weeks ago. How about trying to look for sources instead of deleting a new article? Zambelo; talk 04:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, there are no sources besides a few mention in obscure publications. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, the first onus was on you to provide enough sources to make her article keepable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to establish notability, does not meet WP:BIO. Search for sources (web, news, journal) did not find anything other than self-published, social media, and directory listings. Tgeairn (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if enough properly reliable sourcing can actually be found to get her over WP:GNG — but she's not entitled to keep an article on Wikipedia that's referenced solely to her own self-published website, or that's formatted like a résumé. Especially in a WP:BLP, notability and reliable sourcing has to be demonstrated immediately, and is not something that you get to claim an exemption from just because the article is "new". Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and above. Did numerous sweeps of US news sources, psychology sources, didn't find anything that might meet WP:GNG, although if Wikipedia is a cult, she might be able to extract us from it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a shred of evidence of notability. How much more of this crap is there?? --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Fails to satisfy the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2014 (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.