Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Perry Piscione


 * 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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Deborah Perry Piscione

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She has notability as an author and only as an author. This could best be seen by removing this promotional page and stating over. There are extensive similarities with her self-written bio on an speaker advertising site,, and probably with other pages. The TM symbol is used throughout for everything she is associated with. positions are listed in a lump with clear sequence. Various professional activities are interwoven with discussions of her children. All these are routine promotional techniques.  DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep Very well sourced and that should make this author notable. So there, keep per Green Cardamom. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep Agree with nom, notable author passes WP:AUTHOR #3 on book reviews. (not a complete list). Since Afd is a topic-level discussion, I have no immediate opinion on the content of the article or what is done there, but for AfD the topic is notable. -- GreenC  07:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (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.