Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan RoAne (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Agricola44, 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PROMOTION||WP:TNT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)