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, was borderline A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Carew[edit]

The WP:PROD was contested, but without making any changes that address the problem. No reliable sources to show recognition by independent third parties of the work of this author. This article has been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:64.230.71.197 as being the result of a promotional editing campaign that added mentions of this author's books to several articles including: Swinging, Group sex, Sex club, Polyamory, List of romantic novelists, Ménage à trois, and Open marriage. The creator of this article, who signs as User:ElizabethBC, might have a relationship to Elizabeth Batten-Carew, a name which is given (in this very article) as being the real name of the novelist Opal Carew. Nothing prevents us from keeping articles written by the subject provided that they are neutral and notability is shown. This does not appear to be the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. For discussion of another article recently created by this editor, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of erotic romance authors. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At no time has notability been established. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that she is a notable author. Also, if WP:SPAM has been violated here, I'm going to address that situation on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the heads-up. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Macy (Review me!) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup While the article should be copyedited, this article has enough notability to stand as an article.--LAA Fan 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any of the guidelines listed at the notability guidelines. Good sourcing, but none of the sources seem to be very reliable. Razor flame 17:50, 31 May 2008 (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.