Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Morningstar (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. Unlike the 2008 discussion, this time the focus was on finding sources for notability, and the consensus is that such sources are lacking. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Morningstar

[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)

There is a long list of writings on what look to be defunct small presses. Self-published? The only sources for the article look to be self-penned author bios, or deadlinks. There has also been COI editing on the page.[1][2] Unless someone else can find some indication of third-party notability, right now this looks to be serving as the person's resumé. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current sources don't demonstrate notability. In BEFORE sweep, couldn't find much that would make her notable in a WP:BASIC style. I also looked at WP:AUTHOR, there's a review of Weaving Magic into Your Life at publishers weekly, however that was the only reliable review I was able to find (a bunch of non-reliable/independent ones). No single redirect target jumped out. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also like to note that the previous AfD was a major race to the bottom for both Keep and Delete "!"votes, in terms of making any policy justified argument. I think the reviewer was right to NC it, just because of the lack of a basis to work from. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being prolific does not make one notable, and in this case there is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find articles about them on Google but nothing came up. Definitely not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 05:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found one book review on Publishers Weekly.[3] That's not enough per se. A search on ProQuest turns up 16 hits but most or all seem to be passing mentions. Haukur (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything more that would count. Haukur (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (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.