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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Barrett (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)

Religious figure that doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. The references and external links on the article all suffer from the same problem - they're not independent of the subject of the article. Reference 1 is to the subject's own music website. Reference 2 is to a Google Books page for a book with a blurb beginning, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." (WP:NOTSOURCE). Reference 3 is to another Google Books page, for a book the subject wrote, published by self-publisher AuthorHouse. The first external link goes to a site which indicates at the bottom of the page that it is affiliated with an organization that the article indicates the subject is co-founder of. The second external link is the subject's music site again. The third external link is from a site that indicates on their about page that it does not have the resources to independently verify all of the data it receives and posts. (I am aware that external links do not have to be independent to be external links, I'm just mentioning them to address the question as to whether or not they can serve to establish notability.)
As for my own check, the only thing I found on Google or Google News about this Ruth Barrett is the site that is the third external link mentioned above. I found several articles about Ruth Barrett the composer, and obituaries for four other women named Ruth Barrett, but not anything that appears to be significant independent coverage of this Ruth Barrett. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not been able to find sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent sourcing. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 18:22, 30 December 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.