Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deseret Tavares

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. One source is inadequate the policy says multiple Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret Tavares[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. In spite of having bit spots on TV every once in a while, this is not a notable psychic. jps (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can not find reliable sources, and the page itself is not much help. If she were as notable as the page seems to suggest, there should be some kind of public record of her predictions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the one source I could find and have stripped away the dead links. Hardly a stirring endorsement but adding my two cents regardless. (There are PR sources available, beware their addition) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panyd, unfortunately I don't have access to the source you added. Can you give an approximate estimate of the number of words about the specific topic of the article, so we can have an indication of the coverage that is provided? Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 23 September 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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]