Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Covington


 * 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) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Covington

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Having looked for sources under both names, I do not see sufficient evidence of notability under WP:PROF or other guidelines. Prod was declined because no reason was given, but I think deletion is the right outcome here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. I see no notability. Dawn Covington has only a minor impact and should not be in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT Spaceysrockets (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Joehazelton. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as not passing WP:GNG. Like the nominator, I can't find anything in Google news about her under either name, and the only properly sourced factoid in the article is that she wrote an essay. That's not enough, and the fact that some other authors of essays in the same book are notable is irrelevant per WP:INHERITED. She also doesn't appear to come close to passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2010 (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.