Deletion of Rosanne Henry

Comment: No prejudice against recreation in the future if enough properly |reliable sourcing can ''actually'' be found to get her over  — but she's not entitled to keep an article on Wikipedia that's referenced solely to her own self-published website, or that's formatted like a résumé. ''Especially'' in a , notability and reliable sourcing has to be demonstrated ''immediately'', and is not something that you get to claim an ''exemption'' from just because the article is "new
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: as per nominator and above. Did numerous sweeps of US news sources, psychology sources, didn't find anything that might meet , although if Wikipedia is a cult, she might be able to ''extract'' us from it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Nothing to establish |notability, does not meet . Search for sources (web, news, journal) did not find anything other than self-published, social media, and directory listings
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)