Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Castle

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Castle[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with heavy overtones of promotional rather than encyclopedic presentation, of a writer and activist with no particularly strong claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, for either endeavour. As written, the article relies entirely on primary sources for anything that's actually about her — the few appropriately reliable sources are not about her, but instead are supporting a coatracked section about other things that an organization she was involved with happened to get involved in. In addition, I've done a ProQuest search and found that there aren't sufficient sources about her to salvage this article with — her name gets just six hits across 20 years, and she wasn't the subject of any of those hits, but was the author of two of them and merely a quote-provider about other things in the other four. That simply isn't enough coverage to claim WP:GNG, and nothing in this article gets her over any of our subject-specific inclusion rules either. Neither writers nor activists are entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can point to primary sources to prove that they exist; it's coverage in reliable sources that gets a person in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable as an author--very few library holdings, and some of her works are self-published. There does not seem to be substantial evidence for any other basis of notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability sufficiently. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2014 (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.