Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyce Rupp


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Joyce Rupp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another article written in a pretty promotional way for an author/"midwife"(??) of dubious notability. Barely any references apart from some book reviews and stuff linking to Ms. Rupp's personal website. — foxj 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This author has sold more than a quarter million books which is quite notable in this market. We can adjust language if Foxj could be more specific about what they find to be "promotional" language. Foxj, is it possible to simply suggest or make edits to these pages rather than suggest their deletion entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avemarpr (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - All Books, News and Highbeam searches found several links but nothing convincingly better of its current version. SwisterTwister   talk  08:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears notable within her field - many mentions in Catholic publications (which are RS for this sort of BLP),   HuffPo mention,   Toronto Star, etc.  Spiritual books are noted at scholar.google.com - so she is not an unknown author for sure.  And not enough cash flow to make one upset at this being too promotional - must such authors do ne earn a lot of money this way. Collect (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Promotional language is never a reason to delete. I hate to keep repeating myself, but AfD is not cleanup. Based on WP:OUTCOMES, she would be kept, taking into consideration the references shown by Collect above. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are out there, . Tag the article for format, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:41, 1 December 2015 (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.