Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Callaghan

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 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Callaghan

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

Largely WP:PROMO article. 2 editors have been adding promotional content that is copied and pasted from other sources. Even with this material deleted page is purely promotional and author is not notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does look like WP:PROMO and a GNG failure. South Nashua (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Kansiime (chat) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a gsearch for reviews brings up plenty, but most of them are not useable, but thank goodness for the US library system:), that shows reviews of Just Add Magic, Lost in London, Lucky Me, Lost in Paris, Lost in Rome (they may be "trade reviews" but still okay for WP:RS), and Just Add Magic appears pretty popular ie. 16 copies, none available, also kirkus has reviewed Sydney Machenzie Knocks 'Em Dead (yes i know some editors aren't comfortable with recent kirk reviews, but this one is critical - "A deeply flawed story of hidden history literally buried within a small white town."), but there is only really one review for each title so more are needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2017 (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.