Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Everett


 * 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. Sources have been successfully rebutted that she doesn't meet GNG yet. Potential is not a policy based reasoning to determine consensus. No prejudice to recreation if she meets GNG in the future. Secret account 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol Everett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks the coverage in reliable sources necessary to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources available are grossly unreliable (including those which are primary), others are WP:ROUTINE announcements (probably including paid listings) or trivial quotes in passing that don't satisfy the significant coverage requirement for notability. One or two more in-depth pieces from the subject's hometown area show WP:LOCALFAME at best, just as if Everett were a local restaurant or a high school play that got a review.

No coverage in reliable sources = not notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable (as opposed to unreliable) sources are WP:ROUTINE announcements (sometimes paid listings) and/or trivial quotations in passing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - A quick search provided many reliable sources. She has written plenty of books, has been interviewed in Fox News, has been published in an interviewed by Health Matrix, she has been cited and interview in WorldNetDaily ([ http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/264177/ link]), there are many videos of her speeches and interviews on YouTube and she even has an entry on IMDb. She definitely fits the requirements for notability by WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Also notice that the article may be poorly written or lacking reliable sources, but the deletion discussion must be limited by WP:POTENTIAL, not current state. She is definitely notable and the article definitely has potential. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with WP:POTENTIAL, but the sourcing just isn't there (in the world, I mean, not in our article). Even most of the sources you link are inadmissible (WorldNetDaily) or trivial (a minute-and-a-half interview on what is not the most reliable network). YouTube videos, IMDB and her own two books (published with tiny, agenda-driven publishing houses) don't do anything since we need reliable, secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Almost no reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Writing books does not make a person notable; neither does an occasional interview. The reliable sources ABOUT her just don't seem to be there. In addition, the article is quite POV and most of the biographical material seems to have been supplied either directly or indirectly by the subject herself. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, but writing many books, being director of four clinics and owner of two, being interviewed many times, including by PubMed indexed Health Matrix and Fox News, and being featured in two documentaries do. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – WP:POTENTIAL – S. Rich (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2013 (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.