Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teal Swan

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Teal Swan}})

Contested speedy. None of the sources given are solid or independent enough to establish notability, and can find nothing better. Unremarkable snake oil merchant self-promoting nudnik. TheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Of the 22 purported references in the article, zero of them meet our standard for independent, reliable sources. That doesn't get into the BLP grounds for deletion, which are substantial, especially with the state of the references. I am less certain whether or not an article on this subject could be written. [http://www.delawareonline.com/story/life/2015/07/27/inside-can-help-talk-emotion-kids/30725375/ This] Delaware Online (the online branch of The News Journal) article about Inside Out somewhat inexplicably treats Swan as an expert and spends more time discussing her beliefs about childhood emotion than it does the film. And while [http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-radio/2014/11/25/TV-employs-fewer-gimmicks-during-sweeps/stories/201411250006 this] article makes literally only a passing mention of Swan, it implies the existence of a three-part series on Swan and her claims by KIVI-TV. I'm neutral as to whether those two sources constitute sufficient framework for a biographical article. But I'm not neutral about the current content here; it needs to go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to describe one's problems. It's also not a place to WP:PROMOte one's business or views. There's no claim of notability in the article, and even WP:BOMBARDed with questionable refs, it fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - search showed no notability. The nom and above editors have said it all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.