Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen


 * 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. v/r - TP 16:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to me, after a bit of research, to unfortunately fail WP:GNG. Sarah (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This page was made solely to present factual information about Bainbridge Cohen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slbeach11 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Bainbridge Cohen is sourced in a single, very obscure journal article. Her book was published almost 20 years ago and all editions collectively are held by only <200 institutions, which is extremely low for "self-improvement" publications. Other than those, the only sources are to her commercial website. Article is mostly WP:OR, is SPA-created, and prominently mentions her courses and DVDs on "Body-Mind Centering®", suggesting the article may have been created for promotional purposes. Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Agricola44 -- the single article is a real source that should be weighed (it's not that obscure a journal), but it's not enough to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that the single article does not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources, so notability per WP's guidelines has not been established. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.