Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Smith Pegues


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  14:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Deborah Smith Pegues

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article by a declared paid editor. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but there is actually no evidence that this individual meets the WP:GNG despite the 28 sources the article has been packed with. A large number are the subject's own articles or videos, many others are primary sources of no value, and some are sources that relate to a trivial fact in the article but have nothing to do with Deborah Pegues. I have conducted a complete assessment on the talk page and I urge editors to refer to that, as this appears to be quite a deliberate attempt to make an article appear well-sourced to people who do not have time to go through the huge number of sources. Hugsyrup 11:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are made up of passing mentions rather than sources about Pegues. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NEXIST, worldcat shows 1600 library holdings so it is likely her books have reliable sources reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete We need to enforce our articles against promotional use of Wikipedia, this means deleting all articles with promotionalism as the reason for creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR, the subject has written books that have been the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (Beyond Today magazine and LifeandLeadership - Dr. Carlus Gupton). She also has independent coverage in The Virginian-Pilot. The article's primary sources have been reduced and the tone has been improved per WP:NOTPROMO. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the article's talk page. E-Stylus (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * those are remarkly unimpressive placesfor reviews that might show notability.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Although Pegues gives a lot of workshops and book-promotion talks, every source I find is promoting such events, I cannot find soures that are about her or about her books. Just copy in local newspapers promoting some talk she is giving. NotButtigieg (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 3 independent sources provided above that cover the subject and/or her books. E-Stylus (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Created by an SPA (with possibly paid editing), this subject is a run of the mill TV personality and writer. Literally anybody, I mean anybody, can walk into Trinity Broadcasting Network and get on air/cable. Does D. Ross Thompson, who used to appear regularly on TBN, deserve his own article? What about Valerie Saxion? Or Medina Pullings? Or Danielle Kincebach? Or David Demola? TBN is notable, as are some of its bigger shows, because it has over 5 million viewers and is the subject of extensive coverage, but not everyone who appears on their shows. In fact, we usually delete such articles. I don't see any change to that longstanding consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:SPATG, "One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." Approximately half of my edit history is paid and the other half isn't. As previously communicated in the initial discussion above, my paid contribution disclosure for this article is noted on the talk page. The subject's notability relative to Wikipedia's guidelines is based on WP:AUTHOR, not television hosting. There are 3 independent sources provided above that cover the subject and/or her books. In addition, she has received the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association's Platinum Book Award for one of her books that sold over a million copies. E-Stylus (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep scales through WP:AUTHOR clearly and also WP:GNG is covered.Jokejust1000 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Her books sell, but that is not among the criteria for meeting the policy, WP:AUTHOR that you have cited.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional editing and dubious notability . The combination of borderline notability and clearly promotional editing is one of the best justifications for deletion. We can consider keeping and improving paid promotional  editing when the subject is so notable that WP really does need an article on them; I can see keeping articles on borderline subjects when they're the earnest effort of a good faith volunteer in an under-covered field. But when the subject isn't  really important and the writing is promotional ?
 * The least we can expect of a paid editor that know how to selectively accept jobs only from clearly notable subjects, and that they know how to write a non-promotional article--there have been a very few paid editors here who have been able to manage it.. But a paid editor who will accept a job on a borderline subject usually ends up writing a promotional  article, because there generally isn't much else to say.  (A good volunteer editor writing on a borderline subject will write a fairly minimal article, knowing not to include dubious material--but the client of a paid editor is very unlikely to accept such an article as value for money.
 * If half the jobs of a paid editor are unsatisfactory, as is the case here, and they do not quickly learn how to do better, as has unfortunately been the case here, and if they use up the time of good reviewers by trying at length to justify their inadequate work, they are not contributing usefully to WP.   DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject's references meet the notability guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. This article was created in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:PAID guidelines and approved for publishing via the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. In good faith, I have worked to improve the article's references and tone. The content does not meet the WP:DEL-REASON criteria of "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". should not override Wikipedia's guidelines. Between October 2018 and September 2019, I've contributed six paid articles which were approved for publishing by AfC editors. Between 12/18/19 and 12/25/19, five of these articles were tagged (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5). While I'm more than willing to improve my writing style relative to Wikipedia's guidelines, it is unreasonable to expect that these articles would reflect the tone preferences of one editor when the content was approved by multiple other AfC editors. The outcome of this article should be determined by its content and adherence to site guidelines. E-Stylus (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2020 (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.