Deletion of Alis Rowe

Comment: A breakdown of the recent changes. Seven of the fifteen sources cited are primary, which are the BBC Radio and Surrey Hills Community Radio interviews (interviews are primary sources), the National Autistic Society profile (she wrote the profile herself and is connected to this group), the Your Autism Magazine article (she wrote it and the magazine is distributed by the National Autistic Society, with which she is connected), the Healthy Magazine article (a brief article that she wrote), AuKids (she is connected with it, which is all the cited page says), and the Curly Hair Project is her own website. Secondary sources have to be independent of the subject, therefore these are all primary sources. The Getreading article, the Richmond article, and the UnLtd. page all have only one sentence about her, therefore they are all obvious examples of . The Huffington Post article isn't about her and mentions her only briefly. This is not significant coverage. The Bath Echo article and the Richmond & Twickenham Times article are both from local papers, and generally more weight is given to national media outlets in establishing notability. A one-page Marie Claire article is cited, but it is not available online so its contents are unknown. The lase source, Able magazine, appears to be an example of  as the article cited is very promotional, the magazine does not come from a reputable established publisher, and it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Even after these changes this article still fails  because it does not have enough '''significant''' coverage in '''reliable secondary''' sources, and still relies too heavily on primary sources (seven out of fifteen, nearly half) and trivial coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:TRIVIAL||WP:QUESTIONABLE||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'll take the strict policy-based approach. See : "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Alis Rowe has NOT received significant coverage in reliable published secondary sources. As far as I know the only usable secondary sources that have given coverage to Rowe are the aforementioned Huffington Post article and the Reading local news article cited; however, neither article is actually about Rowe and in both she is only mentioned in passing. The basic criteria also says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would say that the coverage of Alis Rowe in secondary sources is indeed trivial. Also see : "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional." One of the sources cited, Able Magazine, describes itself on its website as a magazine that "Highlights and PROMOTES lifestyle issues important to disabled people in the UK." It describes itself as promotional, which means it's considered a questionable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Also see : "Self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." One of the sources cited, the Jigsaw Tree, is a group blog so it would not be acceptable as a source according to these guidelines. Needless to say, Amazon and Goodreads should not be cited as sources on Wikipedia. Based on this, my conclusion is that the Alis Rowe article does NOT meet the criteria for notability or for reliable sources and should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:QUESTIONABLE||WP:SPS)

Comment: simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass . Some mentions, but not enough in-depth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06mc8jp BBC interview, Able Magazine national award nominee profile, and other refs meet , though some need clean up. She also appears to be featured as an expert for national organizations and publications such as http://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/tmi/stories/alis.aspx National Autistic Society (UK), http://www.aukids.co.uk/our-experts/our-experts AuKids Magazine and others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)