Deletion of Janna Nickerson

Comment: Though this author may be barely notable, she passes . Being self-published is not a valid reason for deletion if sources are available. According to http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Janna+Nickerson%22&cf=all this Google News Archive search, several sources exist that establish this writer's notability. http://www.kcby.com/news/local/15845157.html Here is an article from KCBY and http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=GF&s_site=grandforks&p_multi=GF&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=112B8306E95D1898&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM two http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=GF&s_site=grandforks&p_multi=GF&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=112B83066F112220&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM articles from ''Grand Forks Herald''. A possible argument for deletion could be "only has local notability" but I disagree with that. I agree with {{user|Iridescent}}, who http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFloatopia&diff=290404265&oldid=290403024 said in another AfD debate that ""Only local importance" doesn't wash as a deletion reason; many if not most of our articles (in some cases like transportation and geography, close to 100%) are on topics of only local importance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: coverage of her is too local to satisy the notability criteria.  Being self-published doesn't mean one is inherintly non-notable, Nietzsche for example published some of his books himself.  One has to meet  or  independantly of the self-published works and this subject's notability isn't widespread enough for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:N)