Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Bertman
is my vote, but No Consensus could be a valid close. The nom and ditto to delete have asserted  and fancruft, but given no examples that violate that rule. "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always ''assume the editor is trying to do the right thing''-links to AGF-. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." Not only is giving no valid rationale invalid under , it is difficult for Keep voters to respond to; I cannot even begin to understand what they could possibly find that fits those two essays, but as it stands now, the only reply would be itself a bald assertion with no facts. Quite honestly, I can come to no other conclusion other than they simply DONTLIKE so much that they believe facts in favor of notability (a dozen celebrity subjects and a score of celebrity patrons) to be fancruft and COI. Furthermore, voters themselves have been prudent enough to classify their votes as not firm. This AfD might have been better to close No Consensus rather than relisting. #Deletion discussion and  CONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy
— User:Anarchangel, 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:DEL||WP:DEL||WP:ROUGH (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)