Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryss Shane

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. Sandstein 14:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kryss Shane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR - the book that is said to have been "released" seems to only be available for pre-order and has not yet actually been released. All eight criteria at WP:NACADEMIC appear to fail as well. Given the fact that one of the first release dates I can find for this book is just a few weeks from today, I worry that one or more editors here could be the subject herself or a close connection, violating WP:AB and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Paradoxsociety 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paradoxsociety 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paradoxsociety 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A quick Google search for the original author's username "Munchkin1616" provides strong evidence that this user is the subject of the article. Definite WP:COI. Paradoxsociety 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON for WP:NAUTHOR, which usually requires at least 2 (published) books with several reviews in reliable sources. There are a couple of passing mentions in the NYTimes + local news, but nothing that looks like a pass of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - These types of articles are always hard, because they often seem like shadow promotional sites. In some of the refs, like Oprah and Rolling Stone, she's just handing out pretty generic advice. I'm also always suspicious when book blurbs are by other authors, not professional critics from RS. Caro7200 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable business consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1930:E530:8C5C:DAD0:2C87:C21A (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2020 (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.