Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Carrion

[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)

Article was prodded for deletion in June 22, 2017, subsequently deleted and then restored a year later after this deprod request made by an IP claiming to be Sasha Carrion herself. When I noticed the deprod, I tried to clean things up a bit a find some better sources per WP:BEFORE; however, I haven't really been able to find the kind of WP:SIGCOV that is usually required to meet WP:BIO. It's certain that Carrion has appeared on a number of TV/radio programs as a guest expert, but I don't believe just that makes her Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article. I also asked about this at WT:BIOGRAPHY#Sasha Carrion, where AfD was suggested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by GNG, and can't think of any special subject-specific guidelines (like WP:ATH) that might apply. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find sources in some large newspapers and couldn't. Appears to fail WP:NBIO. The current sources used in the article are primary or in-universe. —Paleo Neonate – 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good rule of thumb I preach is that when you are dealing with someone "famous" in the era of the Internet and you can't find enough resources to prove notability within a 20-minute Google search, then they aren't notable. Even if there were notable print citations, they would be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. Don't spend your precious time trying to find the unfindable. Sgerbic (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources, noting that though several TV and radio show appearances could be verified, those sources fall under primary sources and are not sufficient to assert notability. Reliable secondary sources are thus far elusive. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is one indepth article, but it is only one, and it is only available from the subject's own site, even though there it is claimed to have been published in multiple newspapers. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of detailed WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions in few articles does not meet WP:GNG--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:10, 23 August 2018 (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.