Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Slozberg (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Speedy delete  as a creation by a banned user. --B (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

Miriam Slozberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable author-- the books have no library holdings at all in Worldcat and appear to be self published. The reverences are blogs or press releases and show no notability  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete same article was deleted less than a month ago --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I declined the speedy since it was just different enough to where I can't really rationalize deleting it as a copy of the previous version deleted at AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep She is not only an author but also an astrologer. Please, check her appearances on several radio shows.--Msolzberg (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Msolzberg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The big problem here is that none of the sources on the article are really usable as reliable sources per Wikipedia. Here's a rundown of the sources:


 * 1) BlogTalk Radio isn't usable as a reliable source since it's one of those sites where anyone can open up their own channel for the most part. Even though it's spoken, it falls under the same umbrella as written blogs.
 * 2) This one is borderline, but generally speaking, radio shows in general aren't really considered to be usable unless they're something that is nationally syndicated. The station also has to be one that is considered to be rather reliable, such as NPR.
 * 3) This is another non-notable radio station as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Note that I said per Wikipedia. You can have shows that can be popular and known, yet still not be considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards.
 * 4) This is another radio show that could be borderline, but will probably end up being an unusable source once I put it through the RS noticeboard.
 * 5) This isn't really an article as much as it's an advertisement for someone to visit their blog radio station... which is unusable as a reliable source. It barely even mentions the book as anything other than a passing mention, in any case.
 * 6) This looks to be Slozberg's own blog/website and lists a press release. This is seen as a primary source and cannot be used as anything to show notability.


 * In the end all we have are two appearances on radio shows that are of dubious notability at best. That's not enough to show notability. I'll see what I can find, but I wanted to detail these and show why none of the sources are usable as reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tried to find sources, but there just isn't anything out there that would show that Slozberg passes notability guidelines. In the end all we have are two appearances on radio shows that are pretty unusable as reliable sources. We need something other than just radio show appearances to show notability and that just doesn't exist at this time. Just having published something isn't enough to give notability either. Considering that this was created less than a month after the previous AfD, it might be worth salting to prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COI. iUniverse and Dreamsculpt Media, cited as her books publishers, are specialised in self-publication  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per G4, recreation of a page that was previously deleted per a deletion discussion. Added sources do not show notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt WP:COI biography re-created against recently-established community consensus that the subject is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (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.