Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Barenblat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Barenblat[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splinemath (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the article certainly is over self-promotional, would the nominator care to proffer some -- any? -- reasoning for why the subject is not notable? Ravenswing 06:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an obvious COI issue but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. A long profile in the Berkshire Eagle, which is a definite WP:RS and multiple sermons and opinion articles in Forward, among other coverage are enough evidence for WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and we have to be extra vigilant to stop any attempts to use it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article was created as an autobiography 11 years ago it has been edited substantially by many hands since then, and the subject appears to pass WP:GNG as having coverage in multiple independent sources. Interestingly in 11 years no-one had taken the trouble to leave any comment on her talk page pointing out our policies on COI, until I did so on seeing this nomination. PamD 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.