Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilary Rowland


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Rowland

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Highly promotional bio, no real notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone else had listed this earlier but simply transcluded a red linked discussion. Am I the only person who can notice when an afd discussion is red linked? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article does not meet the notability standards. There may be a conflict of interest with the author. Many of the references are sources that are controlled by the individual mentioned. User:Earlylitespeak September, 26, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete with a probable salt. No Gnews coverage. No independant sources. Lots of press releases. And once you remove wikipedia, myspace and facebook, you've got less than a thousand hits. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as this article has now been edited and reduced, and promotional references removed. User:Writer2405 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom. Promotional piece, subject is not notable. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this article now has only verifiable reliable sources listed User:Writer2405  —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete Promotional peice. Subject does not meet notability standards. User:WGhent


 * Keep Anything promotional had been removed and five (5) verifiable reliable sources had been used as references when i had edited this on 16:27 Sept. 28, but then today it had been edited to be spammy and promotional by 6roadmakes. What gives?  I have now re-edited it to have only reliable, verifiable resources listed. Isn't the purpose of the Deletion list, to try to improve articles that need improving. So why are people deliberately trying to make it worse? User:Writer2405  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Indented. See same "keep" comment by this user, above. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for now. User:LatinoCharmer 30 September 2008 (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.