Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Louise Gittleman


 * 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. -- Lear's Fool 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page was created by the person the page is about. It needs to be deleted and recreated by a third party, if a third party ever wanted to do so. The current page is not accurate or unbiased, and attempts to correct the problem are repeatedly reversed. Algittle (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, nomination does not cite a valid criteria for deletion. (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT). If there was a COI when the article was created, it's since been addressed and balanced by other editors. Sources demonstrate sufficient notability. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject meets Wikipedia notability standards; any discovered problems in the existing article can be easily remedied. A Google News search for  turns up extensive coverage of subject and her works by major print media, including the New York Times, New York Post, Newsday, Washington Post, Miami Herald and others.  --CliffC (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This person is notable. The nominator was the original author of the article last June. Originally, the article was a self-promotional puff piece full of gushing praise for this nutritionist. Other editors re-wrote the article to remove peacock terms and reflect what the reliable sources actually say about this person's work, and now the subject doesn't like the article.  No convincing reason to delete the article has been offered. Cullen328 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The "criticism" section strikes me as overly aggressive and could use a slight toning down of volume, in my estimation. This seems to be a public figure for whom encyclopedic biography would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.