Deletion of Ursula owen

Comment: Being "pure Wikipedia:vanispamcruftisement|vanispamcruftisement" does not meet automatic deletion. The subject passes  so the article should be kept. See http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060218/asp/calcutta/story_5856154.asp this article from ''The Telegraph (Kolkata)|The Telegraph'' and http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jul/21/pressandpublishing.politicsphilosophyandsociety this in-depth profile from ''The Guardian''. Without question, Ursula Owen is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Pure Wikipedia:vanispamcruftisement|vanispamcruftisement created by the subject ({{User|U0wen}}) in violation of  … insufficient  to establish meeting  criteria … Happy Editing! &mdash; '''{{#if:141.156.165.77|{{User|141.156.165.77}}|Special:Contributions/141.156.165.77|141.156.165.77
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: and clean-up). The Guardian's http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jul/21/pressandpublishing.politicsphilosophyandsociety review establishes |notability. The article may have started as an autobiography. However the quality of the text is good and appears neutral, although it would benefit from more rigorous referencing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)