Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanda Hahn

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) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chanda Hahn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable sourcing to carry a claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu. This is sourced 3/4 to her own self-published website about herself and 1/4 to a glancing namecheck of her existence in a blog post whose subject is a very general phenomenon, not to any proper evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- an article has to be referenced to media coverage about her, not to her own website about herself, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to absence of independent sources, plus near-certain COI. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per preceding comment ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the 4 sources, 3 are by the subject and so are in no way independent. The 4th is identified as a blog at the top of it. It also only makes passing mention of the subject, in the context of new marketing techniques for ebook publishers. Plus the article references the University of Minneapolis, which redirects to the University of Minnesota, which I am pretty sure as a public institution does not offer a major in "children's ministry". So the article has major issues of content accuracy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.