Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Harra (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Carmen Harra
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Nothing indicates this individual might be notable. The "sources" presented are as follows:


 * Six links to her books on Google Books . Needless to say, these are irrelevant as far as demonstrating notability is concerned.
 * An interview with a tabloid reprinted by an even shadier site.
 * A sale page from her publisher.
 * A dead link to a tabloid.
 * A news brief mentioning her rivalry with another psychic.
 * Passing mention in an "odd news" type of article from 2004, where she predicts that the 2008 US Presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and a Southern woman 10-12 years her junior. Notability not confirmed; no comment on her abilities as a psychic.

As the above analysis shows, there is no evidence Harra passes WP:BIO, and we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage Harra gets outside the tabloid media is non-existent, and even the tabloid one is scanty. Dahn (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable sources. Salt as a recreation of a previously AfD-deleted page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough coverage in WP:RS and thus fails WP:GNG.  →TSU tp* 15:46, 29 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.