Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Sweeney

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. slakr^\ talk / 03:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Sweeney[edit]

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

I'm simply not seeing any signs of better notability and improvement especially third-party attention as the best I found was this, this and this and as interesting and somewhat sourced as this seems, I'm simply not seeing anything better and this hasn't changed much since November 2008. Notifying author Auric. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding some coverage about her business (Today, Daily Herald), but it's predominantly from the same point in time. The most recent thing I've found so far is this source, but it's primary since it's written by Sweeney herself. That the article has some mildly promotional tones doesn't help much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is permanent. If she was notable at one time, she continues to be notable unless it is a WP:ONEEVENT situation. I sse a lot of deadlinks in her article, so someone needs to run down archives, but she has a few WP:RS in support of her claims.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the dead links. While the article could stand some further cleanup and reformatting, I feel it should remain.Auric talk 23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic pseudo bio; she's received sporadic attention for her claim to be able to teach children potty training in one day. I don't see the in-depth coverage of her necessary to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is more about her business than about her personal life but that's not problematic, it's merely what she's notable for. I think the coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no substantial accomplishment. Runs a course out of her kitchen to toilet train children. This is below the level of an encyclopedia. the newspaper articles is the sort of coverage that shows the GNG to be nonsense when taken literally. The policy, fortunately, is NOT TABLOID, which rules out coverage for stuff like this. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is encyclopedic fodder. Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Searches showed that there is not enough in-depth coverage of the person this article is about to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runs her own business but is not otherwise know. It's not SIGNIFICANT nation-wide media coverage either, and I don't think it's enough to keep the article. JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2015 (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.