Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Self


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Self

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

Article fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched in multiple databases and archival research sources - but was unable to find any secondary sources independent of the article subject that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V and significantly discuss the individual whatsoever. It also appears that there were absolutely zero book reviews of the author's book - which was itself published by a non-notable publisher. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note related Afd put up by nom: Articles for deletion/60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard. Location (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this note, which I had mentioned at Articles for deletion/60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard but forgot to link to and also mention here. Both the book and the author are non-notable, both fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was looking for a reason to redirect this to 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard, Werner Erhard, or even The Tuscaloosa News; however, neither the subject or her book are notable per WP:AUTHOR OR WP:NB. Location (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Every time someone disagrees with Cirt he sends them a private message asking them to change their vote "revisit their position". Isn't that canvassing? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A message to someone's wiki talk page is in fact a public, not a "private" message. And posting a helpful notice to an individual informing them that their comment has been responded to, if they are not necessarily watchlisting every single articles for deletion discussion that they comment in, is not canvassing. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you ask people to change their vote "revisit their position".. That's canvassing. "messages that are written to influence the outcome". TomCat4680 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, do not misrepresent me. I kindly requested two individuals to revist their comments at the AfD after I had commented in response to the points they had raised. That is most certainly not "canvassing". Note: disingenuously placed this note here, though I have not contacted anyone about this AfD discussion, and falsely places in quotes words I have not said. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cirt. A non-notable author. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Neutrally worded notice of this debate given at talkpages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete one unimportant book, and nothing else.   DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable journalist.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A non-notable author who wrote a non-notable book. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (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.