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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Kshir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Selfpublished author and anti-child abuse advocate; doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources are PR releases and blogs, and don't seem to meet WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Borderline for speedy as advertising or no credible assertion of notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it advertising? Not that I care whether it is deleted or not. I only recreated the page because when I was doing new page patrolling I came accross it and found that the original article could be improved. After being improved, it asserts notability. Even if it's not notable, the mere assertion of notability makes it no longer A7 worthy. Balloonman (talk · contribs) does a great job of clarifying what A7 means here. Therefore, when I improved the article and notability is asserted, it's no longer A7 worthy whether it truly is notable or not which is why I recreated the article. I, of course, have no personal attachment to it and I'm not going to vote here one way or the other and I support your right to !vote, I just feel your rationale that it is speedy worthy is not right.--v/r - TP 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to source the article. However, it's borderline on the advertising since most of the prose consists of praise for her books, but you're right that would more likely tag this version with ((advert)) rather than ((db-spam)) when patrolling,, and you're correct that it does assert notability and therefore could pass a7, so I have refactored my above comment. Looking at the actual sourcing, I don't think we can trust newsblaze as a source. They have no editorial statement or even an about section of their website. Furthermore, Donna Kshir has authored several articles for the publication, thus making an interview by that publication somewhat dubious. So I stand by my delete, but I thank you for your thoughtful criticism of my hasty comments. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad we could work it out. You're probably right about the sources, but I feel I've given the article the best chance at survival and the fairest opportunity to develop into an article. I'm also a CSD Tagger, but I try to fight to sterotype of taggers by improving articles that seem like they might have a chance.--v/r - TP 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I generally think that pages by/about selfpublished authors are advertising for their books. But I agree that we should let the AFD discussion play out. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - yes, self-advertisement qualifies as db-spam in my book any day of the week. There's no meaningful evidence notability in this advertising blurb, obviously written by her press agent or by the subject or both. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2010 (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.