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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Verrier

[edit]

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

This article has been completely rewritten over the years, but is still without sources, nor does it engage any of the arguments with Verrier's work in any attempt to be neutral. This article seems to be written by Nancy Verrier herself, one of her acolytes, or whomever at her publisher writes her jacket copy. This article is biased and without citation and has been in all its various edits for years now. It doesn't even cite Verrier's own work. Ample time has already been allowed for the author(s) of this article to provide balance and citations. Rimeice (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is mostly unsourced puffery, and the subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 16 May 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.