Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casandra Krammer

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. If it were just a matter of WP:N, I'd probably relist at this point. But there's also an assertion that we can't even meet WP:V, which is a much stricter standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casandra Krammer

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

No apparent notability whatsoever. The only sources are essentially directly from the article's subject; this appears to simply be for publicity. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaese check her web site, if you have any doubts that she is notable as a cover designer. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her website isn't a reliable source. And even if we could use that, it still doesn't establish that she's notable, just that she's designed some book covers. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any way that the subject could meet either the WP:GNG or our notability criteria for creatives. And that's just notability. Worse than notability we don't have a way to verify any of the content. There are not sufficient independent, reliable sources to create an article from. The subject's website can be used for some simple facts, but not as the basis for an article. Mduvekot (talk) 22:04, 27 August 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.