Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Allison


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Julia Allison

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

I fail to see the purpose of this page. This person does not appear to be any more important than any one else. To be reasonable, if this person is allowed a unique page, then virtually every other person deserves one as well. Given that numerous pages about other people are often removed for similar reasons, this page should also be taken down.

She has no concrete accomplishments to speak of, no examples of impact upon society, the arts, sciences, politics, etc. She merely is someone who has been a successful self-promoter. Her references are themselves opportunistic attempts to self-promote. I do not feel that this page should remain; unless the page is dedicated to the CONCEPT of self-promotion, with this person as an example, citing whatever event(s), procedures, ideas or experiences were employed in order to successfully self-promote.

The purpose of Wikipedia is, and has always been, a means to access useful information to educate and reference. This person and the information associated with her, is not useful nor does it educate; consequently it does not merit display here. Keeping this article says that people who wish to create useless pages for no other purpose than personal gain are more important than those who actually affect society, yet either do not have the time or inclination to create a page for themselves. Wikipedia is about objective reporting and recording of useful facts, events, people, ideas, concepts and phenomena. It is quite simply, not a forum for autobiographical publicity. There are several, reputable websites for such purposes, and I submit that this article has been misplaced.

Due to the fact that this article has been "semi-protected", there is no other recourse or mechanism for recommendation for deletion, such as ":subst:afdl" or "subst:afdx". I request that the article, if not deleted immediately, have its protection removed so that it can be properly discussed, and requests for deletion can be tendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.225.220 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IP left a message on my talk page and the article's talk page wanting this article to be deleted, since the article is semi-protected from editing due to BLP issues. Personally, I have no opinion on this matter.  miranda   18:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I must say that I'm not a fan of this article, with apparently some coi and autobio stuff going on, but it's decently written, well sourced and seems to pass notability, if not with flying colors. Beach drifter (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, echoing Beach drifter's sentiments. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, I understand the right of any editor to bring a article to AFD. However, there is a difference between having a legitimate claim for the AFD process and exercising the community to hear yourself talk.  I'm sorry, but feel this nomination was for the latter.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this where I vote for the Sex on the Hilltop Babe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written, well referenced article on notable person G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 14:09, 8 June 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.