Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Ahern (3rd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Ahern

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

A psychotherapist and author. Recently AfDed for notability concerns, the article was apparently speedily deleted as a recreated deleted page. In the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 22, most participants were of the opinion that it should be the subject of a full deletion discussion instead. The DRV discussion contains links that may be of relevance. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found only two reliable sources: 90-minute PBS show and SF Examiner interview. The PBS show is significant as not many people get their own show "aired on PBS stations nationwide"[1]. But there's a notable absence of in-depth independent sources, which is the requirement per WP:GNG. Am I missing something? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was dug up in the DRV, which comes from the Reno Gazette-Journal, and looks plausibly good. As was this, though I don't have access, so I can't offer any opinion on it's signficance. Wily D 09:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hopelessly promotional article. If she is notable as an author, which is possible but I think unlikely, the best course would be to delete this and start over. I've refrained from removing the worst of it, so people can see just how bad it is. The Reno article is a straight PR piece, letting her say whatever she wanted about herself with no apparent editorial control, and therefore not a RS. Iassume the other Reno article was essentially the same. If there were not the extensive preliminary record, I would have cut this short with a G11, but we do not need another deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The blocked user who created it [2] is the same person who built it up [3] and who admitted on her talk page [4] to being the owner of the publishing house that puts these books out. The publisher has littered Wikipedia with very poorly written articles designed to promote the non-notable writers she publishes. So much for background. On the merits: I agree with much of what DGG has said. A hopeless case of WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2012 (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.