Deletion of Deborah Smith Pegues

Comment: Per , "One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." Approximately half of my edit history is paid and the other half isn't. As previously communicated in the initial discussion above, my paid contribution disclosure for this article is noted on the talk page. The subject's notability relative to Wikipedia's guidelines is based on , not television hosting. There are 3 independent sources provided above that cover the subject and/or her books. In addition, she has received the https://christianbookexpo.com/salesawards/ Evangelical Christian Publishers Association's Platinum Book Award for one of her books that sold over a million copies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPATG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/E-Stylus Created by an SPA (with ''possibly'' paid editing), this subject is a |run of the mill TV personality and writer. Literally anybody, I mean anybody, can walk into Trinity Broadcasting Network and get on air/cable. Does D. Ross Thompson, who used to appear regularly on TBN, deserve his own article? What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Saxion|Valerie Saxion? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medina Pullings|Medina Pullings? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Kincebach|Danielle Kincebach? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Demola|David Demola? TBN is notable, as are some of its bigger shows, because it has over 5 million viewers and is the subject of |extensive coverage, but |not everyone who appears on their shows. In fact, |we usually delete such articles. I don't see |any change to that longstanding consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:CCC)

Comment: The subject's references meet the notability guidelines for . This article was created in accordance with Wikipedia's  guidelines and approved for publishing via the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. In good faith, I have worked to improve the article's references and tone. The content does not meet the -REASON criteria of ''"advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content"''. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&diff=prev&oldid=912240886 Personal opinion should not override Wikipedia's guidelines. Between October 2018 and September 2019, I've contributed six paid articles which were approved for publishing by AfC editors. Between 12/18/19 and 12/25/19, five of these articles were tagged (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=931301944&oldid=929450311 1a, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=931621014&oldid=931301944 1b, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Smith_Pegues&diff=931697154&oldid=916294718 2a, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Smith_Pegues&diff=932054760&oldid=931697154 2b, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hily&diff=931696524&oldid=923339594 3, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Art_of_Elysium&diff=932341531&oldid=932219211 4, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vecna_Robotics&diff=932341983&oldid=923274923 5). While I'm more than willing to improve my writing style relative to Wikipedia's guidelines, it is unreasonable to expect that these articles would reflect the tone preferences of one editor when the content was approved by multiple other AfC editors. The outcome of this article should be determined by its content and adherence to site guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:PAID||WP:DEL)