Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inbaal

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inbaal

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

Media witch who fails to meet WP:BIO - specifically "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Only one source given, to a Sun article. Page has been tagged as needing better sources for a year now with no improvement. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source given seems to be the result of a public relations campaign in support of a psychic TV show. A Google search results in one similar but briefer passing reference. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and write a concise, objective bio from reliable sources. Fair number of good sources, she seems to be a media personality who has some notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven links to the sources identified, three of which are random hits to entirely other subjects. Of the four remaining, one is a carbon copy of a second, leaving three. Of the three, one is the Sun newspaper article which deals at some length but appears to be written from a press release. A second (the one duplicated) mentions her once in passing. The third source is a Daily Mail online 'expose' which again mentions her briefly as fraudulent. I don't myself believe these three sources establish WP:N but if the article is a Keep I'll certainly rewrite it to reflect all three. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at her notability more as a TV performer [1] than supposed psychic, but given that coverage is admittedly spotty, I'll change to a weak keep. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've included the Reuters mention to add a little bit to her biographical history. I also uncovered a listing of her speaking engagements at a large pagan festival in England, and a cover story for a fairly significant Pagan publication. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:34, 6 January 2011 (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.