Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ly De Angeles (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. There is a clear consensus to that effect. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ly De Angeles[edit]

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

2nd nomination; still almost totally unsourced except to her publisher's blurbs about her Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the nom feels that Geocities, Usenet and tabloid magazines are suitable as sources, I don't see how he can discredit the sources used in this article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What exactly does this refer to? It seems to be a total non-sequitur. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is. See your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but i did already "vote" in the last afd, so this is not a new opinion. I agree its poorly sourced and should be stubified if it passes afd, but we arent a clean up crew. Not sure what jbsupremes comments about sources mean. I just know that llewellyn is the major publisher of astrology books in the US. I would change my vote if someone with expertise in astrology says she isnt notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single outside reference is provided. Google provides her own web page plus social websites, blog mentions, and links to her books (and of course this article); not a reliable source to be found. Google News provides zip. Google Books shows only her own books. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that notability has not been established. Being included in an index of published works isn't enough to pass notability - the threshold is non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable secondary sources - which aren't demonstrated here. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, and doesn't even really come close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR, lack of reliable sources. --Whoosit (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (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.