Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Rosin (2nd 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rosin

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Of the three sources, the first is written by the subject, the second fails WP:RELY for being WP:QUESTIONABLE, and the third does not appear to exist. Rawlangs (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Vanity article that does not in any way establish the subject's notability. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt.. After eight years there are still no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My position on living bios is "non-notable until primary sources exist for claims of achievements", not necessarily that certain achievements are notable and some non-notable. However, I nominate this article for deletion unless and until sources for the claims are added to the article itself. (In the only clip, she adds claims of having visited over 100 countries at a young age and learned of their respective space programs, as well as having been "Advisor to the People's Republic of China". Both claims are strangely absent from the article, with the clip linked.) Henrik Erlandsson 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete unless/until we get some real sources. The nominator's concerns about the ones we have now are very well-founded. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If only a quarter of the claims in the article were true, we should be inundated with good sources... --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Institute for Security and Cooperation in Space may also need to be reviewed for notability and sourcing. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The only sources are those associated with the subject, and they in turn are of doubtful notability.Martinlc (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2013 (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.