Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Boynes


 * 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. Article mainly promotional, no substantial reliable third-party coverage provided.  Sandstein  06:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Janet Boynes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Author. Non-notable author, article appears to be primarily promotional. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no reliable sources; most information appears to be her own website, and really doesn't indicate how she meets WP:BIO. The article also reads like a plot summary of her autobiography, rather than a true researched biography. Also, call me cynical, but part of me can't help but wonder if there is some WP:POV-pushing in the tone as well. If somehow she does meet WP:BIO, the article needs to explicitly say so and be substantially cleaned up. -- Kinu t /c  14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I compare this to an article by Kinu on William Nordhaus, I don't see how the references used are any differently done than they are in his article. I also checked this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay. There are articles about people on this list that are less thorough than this article, and they are not flagged. Please give me some time to work on this article. I am confident that I can re-work it to conform to the standards. If you have specific suggestions, I welcome them. Ljh.rms (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Ljh.rms (talk)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a legitimate reason for keeping an article. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm making a comparison because I am trying to understand exactly what specific improvements need to be made. General statements are difficult to remedy.
 * Ljh.rms (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Ljh.rms


 * Delete No reason to think notable--her books are in only two  libraries a/c WorldCat.  Promotional article, borderline G11, with some elements of WP:SOAPBOX.   DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Blatant self-promotion by non-notable figure Vartanza (talk) 04:04, 22 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.