Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethany Kennedy Scanlon

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Kennedy Scanlon[edit]

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

Having looked into the subject of this biography in some detail, I have concluded that Bethany ~~Hughes~~ Scanlon does not meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). More specifically, as an author (the evident claim to notability) she does not meet the creative professionals guidelines. I can find no external evidence for significant coverage of her work at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (note - I've no idea where 'Hughes' came from - I obviously intended to refer to Scanlon AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent coverage about her (independent reviews of her books published by notable magazines/newspapers etc.) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:56, 11 June 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, L Faraone 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO for lack of extensive sources. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Finnegas (talk) 14:42, 26 June 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.