Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ly De Angeles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ly De Angeles[edit]
- Ly De Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. simply writing a few books does not guarantee notability. claims of internationally renowned are not proven with limited third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article needs improvement and a broader range of references, but the subject seems notable enough to have a substantial entry in The Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft, be interviewed on ABC's Compass program, and be cited by well-known witches like Fiona Horne indicates that she is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". --Canley (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lewelyn publishing is a major astrology publisher, not a vanity press or otherwise nonnotable entity. thus she has solid notability within her field(s). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, maybe, if you can find third-party sources - at present, this seems to have been written by somebody who mistook peacock words for assertions of notability. Could we get some third-party sources, please? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Canley. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (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.