Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaryRose Occhino

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaryRose Occhino

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:FRINGEBLP of a non-notable so-called psychic. I found one decently in-depth article in Newsday from 2009 about her opening a shop called "Mary O's Celestial Whispers" and [1] (arguably routine coverage), but nothing else substantive. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on 3rd party significant coverage, especially for people with fringe ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant coverage in independent sources - fails GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her books have been reviewed by at least one reliable sources, i.e. Publishers Weekly. pburka (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from the source indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have (or had) staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers — that's a primary source, not a notability-clinching reliable source, but it's the only "reference" being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2020 (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.