Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonya Reiman (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. Tone 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya Reiman

[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)

Non notable author with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of significant secondary coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is very promotional but lacks any 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability. The fact the article was deleted in 2007 is not a good sign, and nothing in the article suggests events in the 13 years since have combined to make her more notable. It took a lot to get an article deleted back in 2007.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable under WP:AUTHOR and is written like an advert. It lacks any sources and it has all ready been deleted. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Devokewater (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing for Cosmopolitan and Women's World hardly make her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as i have added references like this where they seem to be mentioning who she is and about her work, there are other refs too in the article which I feel passes wp:BASIC. Dtt1^Talk 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding these sources. I would still argue this is not substantial coverage about the subject - a line or two in these cases - and in the case of Business Insider, whether the source is a reliable one. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DMySon 04:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2020 (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.