Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene M. Proctor

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene M. Proctor[edit]

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

The subject fails several criteria, notably WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR, no independent third party coverage in any reliable sources, just a host of self-promotional mentions on ALL the usual webpages (YT, FB et al.), plus spiritual guru web-savvy advertise yourself websites. Cleaned up a bit, as the article also falls (fell) foul of WP:SPIP and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Oh, and what are those refs supposed to be? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This subject fails WP:GNG and alternative criteria named by the nominator. Panning through mentions of this name produces some true hits, but no gems at all as far as substantial coverage on which to base a WP:BLP. And as for existing references, I found little to nothing to indicate notability. JFHJr (㊟) 06:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable, and the article is mostly WP:NOT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (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.