Deletion of Sheryl Nields

Comment: and strongly. {{U|TonyBallioni}}'s assessment above says all that needs to be said and quotes the relevant policies and guidelines. The creator, {{U|Marcomgirl}} (Marketing Communication),  believes that the paid editing declaration as required by policy means free rein to make money out of the volunteers' work here - that's not the way the declaration is supposed to work. Sadly, I have also been attacked for my comments on this issue by a sysop who appears (to me at least) to support paid editing. I will be further investigating the motives behind Marcomgirl's other creations with regards to  and if appropriate I will propose them for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSPAM)

Comment: This was {{oldid|Sheryl Nields|782963162|created without disclosure}} by a paid editor, in violation of the Terms of Use of the Foundation and of our Wikipedia:paid-contribution disclosure|paid-contribution disclosure policy, which, in case anyone has forgotten, is a :Category:Wikipedia legal policies|'''Wikipedia policy with legal considerations''' (the editor did eventually {{diff|User:Marcomgirl|prev|783808378|make disclosure}} some five days later, after {{u|Uncle Roy}} {{diff|User talk:Marcomgirl|783756659|783515168|asked her to}}). It was created for pay, for the sole purpose of |promotion – that the tone is no longer promotional is immaterial, a neutrally-phrased advertisement is still an advertisement. This one, as {{u|DESiegel}} has noted on the talk-page, was also full of inaccuracies – what in plain English we would call "lies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:promotion)

Comment: With three awards, the Annenberg Space for Photography profile, and the inclusion in https://books.google.com/books?id=l99TAAAAMAAJ ''Portraits: The World's Top Photographers and the Stories Behind Their Greatest Images'', meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ARTIST)

Comment: but tag for cleanup of promotional material.  The notability of the subject, Nields, is the question, and it appears to me that Nields does meet |general notability guidelines.  Whether the creator of the article has acted in bad faith or has tried to |game the system is not the question in this debate.  Please take any issues about the conduct of the author to  or to ArbCom.  (I agree that she seems to be saying that because she declared her paid status, she should be given the same treatment as a volunteer editor, and that is nonsense.  However, the question is the notability of Nields
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GAME||WP:ANI)