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. Secret ^account 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri J Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

She exists, but I can't find significant RS coverage of her such as would suggest that she is notable. Others are welcome to try. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability and paucity of refs for two years. Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found one tiny source, a review of her first book through Publishers Weekly. This just isn't enough to show notability for her or her works as a whole and everything else I found was not the type of thing that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. I wish her well, but she doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time, nor do her books.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I find myself in agreement with Tokyogirl79's excellent analysis once again. There's a bit out there but most of it is from her publishers, with a few blog reviews thrown in. Probably not there yet, at this stage. Stalwart111 05:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Tokyogirl179. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (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.