Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Reinhart: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:04, 13 November 2021

Melanie Reinhart

[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)

This is a WP:FRINGEBLP of a non-notable subject. I can find no reviews of her books in reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think winning the Charles Harvey Award for Exceptional Service to Astrology ([1]) counts for WP:ANYBIO. The best source I could find is [2], but it's a book by astrologers published by an occult publisher. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, has an authority control template~~ (I actually once saw this as a keep argument) In all seriousness, Delete, just not seeing any reliable non-in universe coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be relatively influential within the world of astrology; the subject matter being fringe doesn't make in-universe influence non-notable. Rusalkii (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: Influential how? Where? Are you finding some sources that I don't see? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: "Influential" was maybe putting it too strongly. There's no individual source that makes her clearly notable, but she's cited in other books on astrology, features in videos and podcasts, etc. On further research the sources I found don't seem to indicate further depth of sources the way I expected, so still inclined towards keep but much weaker than my initial statement implied. Rusalkii (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also could find nothing at all. Seems to fail WP:GNG. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paucity of sources found, nothing to establish notability. -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *:: {{reply to|Bob drobbs}} "Influential" was maybe putting it too strongly. There's no individual source that makes her clearly notable, but she's cited in other books on astrology, features in videos and podcasts, etc. On further research the sources I found don't seem to indicate further depth of sources the way I expected, so still inclined towards keep but much weaker than my initial statement implied. [[User:Rusalkii|Rusalkii]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 05:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''': I also could find nothing at all.  Seems to fail [[WP:GNG]]. -- [[User:Bob drobbs|Bob drobbs]] ([[User talk:Bob drobbs|talk]]) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' paucity of sources found, nothing to establish notability. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)