Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawnn Karen


 * 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dawnn Karen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not convinced that WP:BIO is met here, and since the article was created by a paid editor (see here for evidence), I think this needs checking by the community. She has been interviewed on TV and discussed her work in the 'Life & Style section of the Sydney Morning Herald, but other than that I can't find anything, particularly anything which discusses her, rather than fashion psychology. She's not completely un-notable, but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Negligible presence except on social media. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. I only see the Herald article as an acceptable source. The other items are web ephemera. As with other paid pages that have arrived here at AfD, WP:NUKEANDPAVE is fitting. Article will be recreated in the conventional way if subject is notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. Even the Herald article is a bit of a content-free puff piece. No evidence of academic notability and too little solid sourcing for WP:GNG. I tried searching highbeam for more but nothing came up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:BASIC. LordFixit (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (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.