Deletion of Susan RoAne (2nd nomination)

Comment: From the Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. It is in the best interest of a credible encyclopedia to keep out advertising and promotion. To protect Wikipedia and uphold it's integrity we should |put aside other considerations and delete spam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per . Per my comment of 12:11, 25 November 2013 above, I'm still not able to access and therefore evaluate those sources. If able to do so, I could decide whether to move from the ''delete'' view I put forward in the previous AfD. As it is, I can't - therefore my view is weakened rather than fully changed. It seems that perhaps we should have an article on one of the subject's most notable books (presumably How To Work a Room) and then '''redirect''' this title there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I question if it is appropriate to |canvas at the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list|list of content for rescue consideration before closure of an AfD? One Keep vote from an active member of the squadron arrived an hour after the canvas was made
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:canvas)

Comment: The article in its original form served not to inform, but to promote. The article in its current form serves not to inform, but merely to excuse its own existence. It is big sodding list of reference that are there merely to claim this person is notable and thus deserves an article. This does not make for a healthy article. It may arguably fit the rules of Wikipedia, but it does not serve the goals of Wikipedia. Subject may be of sufficient notability that she is an acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article, but she is not of such notability that her non-inclusion until someone is willing to write a proper article would be damaging to our efforts. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Read through the articles about her, such as the two referenced in the article right now, and she clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I had !voted weak keep last time, but it seems the closer one looks, the more one finds that almost everything associated with this case is tinged with , for example most of the references in the article are PR firm blogs, adverts for talks, or trivial mentions. Cardamom has again done enormous legwork, but lots of these sources seem to be the subject promoting her book(s). Publisher's Weekly comes up periodically to support notability arguments on the basis of book reviews, but that is a trade publication which reviews probably around 10K books per year, so these reviews are strictly routine. In these cases, it's difficult to cut through the promotional chaff to get to the objective information. Book holdings are objective, but again RoAne's are not very spectacular, considering she writes in the "self help" genre, perhaps the most popular sector in mass market books. RoAne ''may'' be notable, but we can't really have a reasonable debate with the current article and its history &ndash; maybe best to |start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION||WP:TNT)

Comment: per  and  #3 multiple book reviews. Sources below are from commercial databases and can be verified through . This is not a complete list of sources but seemed enough. More available on request (ProQuest has many more yet to be listed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:REX)

Comment: The only plausible reason to keep found in the first AfD was library holdings. However, self-improvement books are a dime-a-dozen and this one does not sand out from the pack, even from its library holdings, as suggested by a participant in the previous AfD. There are insufficient full-length reviews devoted to the books or the author to pass uthor, only some passing mentions. Incidentally, the photo in the article does not resemble the photos in some of the publicity material sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)