Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Waters Lumpkin (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. Courcelles 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tara Waters Lumpkin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to pass wp:academic, at least according to Google Scholar, and the references provided are to her own work/organizations. Can't find anything to suggest wp:bio or wp:gng are satisfied either. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I see that there was a previous AfD that resulted in the deletion of the page. As people were mentioning tarot card reading in that afd, I'm not sure this article is the same as the previous, but maybe an admin could check to see if G4 speedy applies. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same person, but not wholly the same content. (There's a slightly different focus on the biographical detail.)  This article cites sources where the previous did not, too.  So at least one of the rationales from the preceding AFD discussion doesn't fully apply. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. She has written a couple of books, but one of them was published by a ministry of Namibia and the other by "Union Institute", a publisher about which I can find nothing. Neither book appears to have attracted any notice or reviews that I can find. The article lists no Reliable Sources. Her claim to fame is inventing the term Perceptual Diversity, which article was written by the same WP:SPA and should also be considered for deletion as non-notable and unsupported by Reliable Sources. I suggest somebody nominate it; it could have been included in this discussion but can't be added now due to time considerations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment I have nominated Perceptual Diversity for deletion here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because she does not seem to have gotten the kind of notice that leads to WP:Notability. Borock (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 9 cites on GS. 100 times too small. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. All the above comments seem spot-on. Both this article and Perceptual Diversity seem to be either fanpages or vanity pages designed by the WP:SPA account Jaredpoole to WP:PROMOTE Lumpkin. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I might almost go further and call this article WP:ADVERT. The article references her personal website several times, through which she offers various new-age services, presumably for a fee. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (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.