Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Cahall

: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 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

=[[Lois Cahall]]=

:{{la|Lois Cahall}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lois_Cahall Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Lois Cahall}})

I'm not entirely sure if she's solidly notable (at least to Wiki standards) and my searches found no outstandingly good sources [https://www.google.com/search?q=Lois+Cahall&tbm=nws&prmd=vb&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAmoVChMI_IqX2qPSxwIVT4MNCh3eXQ7h&biw=360&bih=559&dpr=4 here], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Lois+Cahall&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 here], [http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=Lois+Cahall here] and [https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=DL3jVcmoLIWogwSQm424CQ&q=Lois+Cahall&oq=Lois+Cahall&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3..41j0l2j0i22i30l2.1204.5027.0.5433.18.13.4.6.6.0.324.1424.11j1j0j1.13.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.18.1051.3.deLf4Yp5Fi0 here]. Depending with the severity, COIs aren't always a huge concern for me as they are sometimes good faiths contributions but this one has hardly hard any other edits (article was started by subject in February 2011 and article has continuously been edited since). Pinging tagger {{U|Joe Decker}}. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete I agree with SwisterTwister that COI isn't necessarily an issue, per WP:ATD, but I don't see (having searched) sources that meet WP:BASIC. Note that the IP address which removed the 2012 BLPPROD tag, in my view, outside of policy, continues to edit on related topics which probably also deserve a bit of scrutiny. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete a whole lot fo self promotion based on extremely minimal notability. This is the first time I have seen a WP page nvite the reader to follow the subject on Twitter (now deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media Theorist (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing which would meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 7 September 2015 (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.