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.
Promotional article on a non-notable subject. There is no secondary sourcing on this subject whatsoever. The writing was promotional (there's more in the history), and the links were primary and in many cases didn't even involve the subject. The PROD was denied by the main editor, but I'll repeat what I said in it: "There are no reliable secondary sources listed here; the best we have is
an interview on an eco website and a
blog post--the rest is organizational, primary, and often doesn't even mention the subject at all. The books aren't verified by reviews or other secondary sources, they're self-published, and they don't see to confer any kind of notability. Some promotional and unverified passages and a linkfarm were already removed, but the entire article should really be nuked as a BLP violation, given the sourcing." When the main editor denied the PROD, they responded by basically adding
more spammy/promotional links.
Drmies (
talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No significant independent coverage, doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Books are not sufficiently significant to meet
WP:AUTHOR.
BruceThomson (
talk) 05:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The books I found clearly satisfy
WP:NAUTHOR. GNG is met by the article subject. The promotional tone of the article can easily be fixed, not a valid reason to delete.
Serratra (
talk) 05:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Which books are those,
Serratra? Also, you know why I'm blocking you.
Drmies (
talk) 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have responded to Dmries message on my talk page. Thanks. :). I propose to "Keep" this article and others I have contributed to. Let us be civil please.
RoseSuccess7 (
talk) 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have responded to Dmries message on my talk page. Thanks. :). I propose to "Keep" this article and others I have contributed to. Let us be civil please. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RoseSuccess7 (
talk •
contribs) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete I tried to improve the article and to find secondary sources, but I could not. I agree with the nominator, this is a puffed up article that lacks secondary sources. I don't think she passes
WP:AUTHOR. I'm willing to change my !vote if anyone can point to some good sources, so please ping me if you do and I'll keep an open mind.
CT55555(
talk) 12:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
To respond to this, the article was moved from Maria Auma to Maria Horne and there might be more references under Maria Auma that might assist with this debate and change your vote.
RoseSuccess7 (
talk) 02:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom,
WP:BASIC, and
WP:PROMO. In addition to an online search, I also searched the Wikipedia Library, including ProQuest, with various searches related to Maria Horne and Maria Auma, and did not find support for notability for the subject of this article.
Beccaynr (
talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (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.