Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Housel


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rebecca Housel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of article requests deletion (OTRS 2017070210007329) S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I always defer to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE unless there is an overwhelmingly strong case that the subject is notable. If this were up for deletion for any other reason, I'd probably be leaning towards keep based on the Gnews results. But I'll support the article subject's request Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  11:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per any notability here is very fragile so no reason not to facilitate the deletion request. AllyD (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Her request seems to be against the spirit of subject-requested deletion which is intended for "non-public figures": Housel has a personal web page which contains a lengthy list of her media appearances, a list of her books and much of the other info in the article, and the statement that "As long as you continue looking for Rebecca, it's all good (just keep a tissue box handy...". But whatever. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, if i had an article covered in citation needed tags for around 4 years, and headed with lots of other tags i'd probably want it deleted as well ... question, since when do statements in the lead need citations, as long as they are not likely to be challenged don't need them (from WP:LEAD, i have just removed it, it was dated December 2013, a cynical editor might say by an editor who couldn't even be bothered to check WorldCat, to verify that Housel did coauthor books on the three franchises mentioned (she did), especially as the talkpage emphasises that wcat is a good source of such info, now that i have got that little rant out of the way it is time for snoozles .... zzzzzzzz. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly not notable per WP:NAUTHOR. No other claim for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2017 (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.