Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine McCarthy (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine McCarthy[edit]

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

References provided lack independence from the subject. No evidence of substantive discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discourse) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (inform) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of "quareia" shows the community takes this concept and McCarthy seriously. Obviously references could be improved, but deletion seems harsh. I say Keep. Roseohioresident (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quareia, fine. But this isn't a deletion discussion about quareia. The question is, is this person independently notable?? The "references" given here include a link to her Amazon offerings, her personal website, her husband's website, and a quareia website, none of which has independence from the subject (she is one of the admins of the quareia site). An assertion that references "must exist" is one of the things to be avoided in a deletion discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Note for reviewing editors: this Josephine McCarthy is not the one from the previous deletion discussion, nor is she the daytime television cooking show host from the 1950s, nor the Josephine McCarthy Waggoner of the Lakota Sioux, nor the one who shot and killed a man on a streetcar in New York in the 1870s, nor the one who filed bankruptcy in Virginia in 2004.] KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show that she is indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatantly promoting a non-notable person. Already speedied it once. Deb (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2017 (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.