Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadeen Anglin

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. Sandstein 09:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadeen Anglin[edit]

[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)

Possible WP:UPE vanity spam and recently deleted article under WP:G11 and WP:A7. Fails WP:GNG. Using Wikipedia for advertisement only. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be removed because she is author and have references AhmdAsjad (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google returns nothing usable at all bar the Jamaica Gleaner article (string: "shadeen anglin"), the article as writ is promotional, and the only usable source of the lot cited is the aforementioned Jamaica Gleaner article, of which one of the other sources is a duplicate courtesy of PressReader. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jéské. From memory, it doesn't seem to have changed much since the previous iteration either (which I tagged for CSD). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Does not have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks like a typical one-man (in this case, one-woman) ministry about the author of two NN books. Probably an ADVERT for these. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. They also did on Tim McGeary. 2001:4455:364:A800:D195:4BA5:3CA8:EA70 (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I revised Tim McGeary so it is formated like an article, but in my opinion does not rise to WP:MUSIC. Also, two IPs are single-purpose editing it, so we may have a sockpuppet situation. David notMD (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above; and I'd be inclined to salt as well. -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, user is blocked. --The Tips of Apmh 14:47, 14 March 2022 (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.