Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Horne


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Maria Horne

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotional article on a non-notable subject. There is no secondary sourcing on this subject whatsoever. The writing was promotional (there's more in the history), and the links were primary and in many cases didn't even involve the subject. The PROD was denied by the main editor, but I'll repeat what I said in it: "There are no reliable secondary sources listed here; the best we have is an interview on an eco website and a blog post--the rest is organizational, primary, and often doesn't even mention the subject at all. The books aren't verified by reviews or other secondary sources, they're self-published, and they don't see to confer any kind of notability. Some promotional and unverified passages and a linkfarm were already removed, but the entire article should really be nuked as a BLP violation, given the sourcing." When the main editor denied the PROD, they responded by basically adding more spammy/promotional links. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Keep. I have responded to Dmries message on my talk page. Thanks. :). I propose to "Keep" this article and others I have contributed to. Let us be civil please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseSuccess7 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant independent coverage, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Books are not sufficiently significant to meet WP:AUTHOR. BruceThomson (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The books I found clearly satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. GNG is met by the article subject. The promotional tone of the article can easily be fixed, not a valid reason to delete. Serratra (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which books are those, ? Also, you know why I'm blocking you. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have responded to Dmries message on my talk page. Thanks. :). I propose to "Keep" this article and others I have contributed to. Let us be civil please. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Environment,  and Uganda.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I tried to improve the article and to find secondary sources, but I could not. I agree with the nominator, this is a puffed up article that lacks secondary sources. I don't think she passes WP:AUTHOR. I'm willing to change my !vote if anyone can point to some good sources, so please ping me if you do and I'll keep an open mind. CT55555 (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To respond to this, the article was moved from Maria Auma to Maria Horne and there might be more references under Maria Auma that might assist with this debate and change your vote. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:BASIC, and WP:PROMO. In addition to an online search, I also searched the Wikipedia Library, including ProQuest, with various searches related to Maria Horne and Maria Auma, and did not find support for notability for the subject of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2023 (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.