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. Per WP:AUTHOR, especially Green Cardamom's links. Deletion is not a fix for WP:COI. The genesis of an article (outside of copyright violations) is generally not a reason for deletion. Sancho 08:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan RoAne[edit]

Susan RoAne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that it has been effectively confirmed that the author of this page was paid to create it, I am going to once again nom for deletion. As I stated in the previous AfD, I think that the article is still fairly promotional (not least because of the second para of background) and the author/speaker is not notable. It is important to note that these are not research books, but mass market ones (hence the library figures noted in the previous AfD are not, in my opinion, high enough to give automatic notability). I will notify all who voted at the previous AfD, and recommend that any new commenters also read the old AfD. This is how the article looked when this AfD was proposed. Benboy00 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only plausible reason to keep found in the first AfD was library holdings. However, self-improvement books are a dime-a-dozen and this one does not sand out from the pack, even from its library holdings, as suggested by a participant in the previous AfD. There are insufficient full-length reviews devoted to the books or the author to pass WP:Author, only some passing mentions. Incidentally, the photo in the article does not resemble the photos in some of the publicity material sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- I thank the nominator for informing everyone who participated in the last discussion, even those of us with conflicting opinions, but I don't feel that the COI editing is sufficient of a revelation to change my views from just two months ago (I think that even for a no consensus two months is too short of a time between AfDs). The library holdings are extremely strong (approximately 2,500 copies for one book and about 1,000 for the other if I recall correctly) regardless of academic or non-academic books. The reviews give reliable sources on which to edit the article and seem sufficiently notable to pass GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. Sources below are from commercial databases and can be verified through WP:REX. This is not a complete list of sources but seemed enough. More available on request (ProQuest has many more yet to be listed).

Per WP:GNG significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:

• "6 Secrets to Successful Schmoozing", New Haven Register (April 11 2010). Abstract: Information about Susan RoAne's book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
• "Let's talk about networking: a conversation with best-selling author Susan RoAne and student lawyer contributing editor Donna Gerson." Student Lawyer Oct. 2003: 26+. (Database: Academic OneFile)
• Steven N. Czetli. "NETWORKING EVENTS IDEAL PLACE TO MARKET YOURSELF", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA) (March 13 2003). Abstract: Review of speech by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
• Carrie Stetler. "How to succeed in business: Make some small talk - One on one". Star-Ledger. (February 4 2001). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
• Barbara Hoffman. "SCHMOOZE OR LOSE; THE MAVEN OF MINGLING WRITES HOW TO NIX SHYNESS AND 'WORK A ROOM'". New York Post (NY) (February 15, 2001). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
• Deirdre Donahue. "'Work a Room' with charm, wit". USA Today (March 9 2001). Abstract: Review of audiobook version of How to Work a Room. (Database: NewsBank)
• Janet Holman Parmer. "THE ART OF SCHMOOZING AUTHOR UNVEILS MINGLING SECRETS", Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA) (September 15, 1999). Abstract: Review of speech by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
• Terry McManus. "Author says networking anxieties can be overcome." Crain's Detroit Business. 10/19/98, Vol. 14 Issue 42, pE-11. Abstract: Offers tips on how to overcome anxieties about meeting new people and learning how to work a room. Importance of listening; Need to find a common thread to get things rolling in the right direction; Use of a seven-second self-introduction. (Database: EBSCO)
• G. Patrick Pawling. "NETWORKING ALIVE AND WELL, AND HELPING TO SELL CARS", Press of Atlantic City(NJ) (November 15 1995). Abstract: Review of talk given by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
• Joyce Gabriel. "Career Women Must Avoid Being `Ladies'", Tulsa World (January 23 1994). Abstract: Review of book and advice by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
• Laurie Aucoin, "BEFORE YOU CAN NETWORK, YOU MUST MINGLE. LEARN HOW TO WORK ROOM", Knight-Ridder News Service. Carried in The Wichita Eagle (KS; December 6 1993), The Dallas Morning News (November 15 1993); The Charlotte Observer(NC; November 15, 1993); Tulsa World (December 26 1993. Abstract: Information about book How to Work a Room by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
• Milrose B. Basco. "Getting down to business at parties, San Diego Union-Tribune (January 11, 1993). Abstract: Information about book How to Work a Room by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
• Loraine O'Connell. "WOMEN ARE NETWORKING LEADERS" The Orlando Sentinel (August 12, 1992). Abstract: Susan RoAne, author of the 1988 guide to networking, How To Work a Room, ties the formalization of networking to the rise of the women's movement. (Database: NewsBank)
• SHARON MOSLEY. "10 STEPS TO SAVVY SOCIALIZING". USA TODAY (July 5 1990). Abstract: Provides 10 step advice how to mingle at parties based on Susan RoAne's How to Work a Room. (Database: NewsBank)
• "How to Work A Convention." Women in Business. Sep/Oct 90, Vol. 42 Issue 5, p7-7. Abstract: Features the book "How to Work a Room," by Susan RoAne. Tips offered by the book on how readers can meet association members and prospective clients at the 1990 ABWA National Convention in Dallas, Texas; Tips on social and business networking; Publisher information. (Database: EBSCO)
• Debroah Fineblum Raub. "On a rain-drenched Saturday night about 100 people sat in rows of metal folding chairs and listened to author Susan RoAne talk. She'd come all the way from San Francisco to teach them the art of networking. And they loved her.", USA Today (December 13, 1988). Abstract: Reviews Susan RoAne's speech. (Database: NewsBank)
• Craig Wilson. "How to work a party; An expert's advice for successful mingling; Stick out your hand and say `hi'" USA Today (November 7, 1988). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
• SHIRLEY ARMBRUSTER. "'WORK THE CROWD', BUSINESSWOMEN TOLD". Fresno Bee (January 13 1988). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
• Alice Kahn. "Networking Your Way To Obscurity", San Francisco Chronicle (December 3 1986). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne and message. (Database: NewsBank)

Per WP:AUTHOR multiple book reviews:

• Bonnie A. Osif. "Communication". Library Leadership & Management. 2010, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p38-44. Abstract: The article reviews several books on human communication including "Voice of Authority" by Dianna Daniels Booher, "Face to Face" by Susan Roane, and "Managing Difficult Interactions" by the Harvard Business Press. (Database: EBSCO)
• Publishers Weekly. 8/4/2008, Vol. 255 Issue 31, p54-54. Abstract: The article reviews the book "Face to Face: How to Reclaim the Personal Touch in a Digital World," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
• "Be the Lucky One." Office Pro. April 2005, Vol. 65 Issue 3, p32-32. Abstract: Reviews the book "How to Create Your Own Luck: The 'You Never Know' Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
• "HOW TO CREATE YOUR OWN LUCK: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity (Book)." Publishers Weekly. 8/23/2004, Vol. 251 Issue 34. Abstract: Reviews the book "How to Create Your Own Luck: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
• "ROANE'S RULES (Book)." Publishers Weekly. 5/5/2003, Vol. 250 Issue 18. Abstract: Reviews the non-fiction audiobook 'RoAne's Rules: How to Make the Right Impression,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
• Loren G. Edelstein. "For the bookshelf." Meetings & Conventions. Nov97 Part 1 of 2, Vol. 32 Issue 12. Abstract: Reviews the books `What Do I Say Next?' by Susan RoAne and `Winning Communications Strategies,' by Jeffrey Kagan. (Database: EBSCO)
• Mary Whaley. "Adult books: Nonfiction." Booklist. Aug97, Vol. 93 Issue 22. Abstract: Reviews the book, `What Do I Say Next?: Talking Your Way to Business and Social Success,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
• Mark Guyer. "Audio reviews". Library Journal. 8/1/1995, Vol. 120 Issue 13, p135. Abstract: Reviews the sound recording `The Secrets of Savvy Networking,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
• Judy Quinn. "Book reviews: Social sciences." Library Journal. 4/1/1993, Vol. 118 Issue 6. Abstract: Reviews the book `The Secrets of Savvy Networking: How To Make the Best Connections--for Business and Personal Success,' by Susan Roane. (Database: EBSCO)
• Debbie Gumulauski. "How to Work a Room." Library Journal. 9/15/1991, Vol. 116 Issue 15. Abstract: Reviews the audiobook "How to Work a Room," by Susan RoAne.(Database: EBSCO)
• David Brooks. "How-To Books for Sharks and Dogs". Wall Street Journal (November 8 1988). Abstract: Book reviews of Susan RoAne's "How to Work a Room: A Guide to Successfully Managing the Mingling" and Job Michael Evans's "The Evans Guide for Civilized City Canines" (Database: ProQuest)

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I can get at of these seem to be passing mentions and do not contain the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews required by WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I've re-arranged the sources so it is clear which are applicable to WP:AUTHOR and which to WP:GNG. If you're going to disparage a source, please identify which one(s). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Green Cardamom's sources look to be very useful but I neither have the time nor facilities to evaluate them at the moment. If they hadn't been posted here, I'd be !voting delete again, on the basis of the article being essentially unimproved (in terms of references) since the 2 months since the first nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had !voted weak keep last time, but it seems the closer one looks, the more one finds that almost everything associated with this case is tinged with WP:PROMOTION, for example most of the references in the article are PR firm blogs, adverts for talks, or trivial mentions. Cardamom has again done enormous legwork, but lots of these sources seem to be the subject promoting her book(s). Publisher's Weekly comes up periodically to support notability arguments on the basis of book reviews, but that is a trade publication which reviews probably around 10K books per year, so these reviews are strictly routine. In these cases, it's difficult to cut through the promotional chaff to get to the objective information. Book holdings are objective, but again RoAne's are not very spectacular, considering she writes in the "self help" genre, perhaps the most popular sector in mass market books. RoAne may be notable, but we can't really have a reasonable debate with the current article and its history – maybe best to start over. Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for confirming you did not verify the sources I listed above. Knowing how contentious this AfD has been, I was careful about choosing sources and read every one. They are reliable, written by journalists, editorial control, significant coverage (almost every one is devoted to RoAne). They are not: advertisements, press releases, announcements or other types of event or product promotion, or full-length interviews (some contain extended quotes). If wish to contest, suggest reading the articles and list which ones you disagree with. Also, you voted Delete, but then recommended TNT ("start over"), these are conflicting. TNT requires Keep, can't TNT a non-existent article :) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just delete, and then wait to see if someone who isn't being paid to do it creates an article on the person. As I understand it, this is the normal and preferred route. Also, where does TNT say it requires a keep vote? Benboy00 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "normal" to delete notable articles on COI grounds. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am not proposing deletion simply because of COI. I was just providing one possible course of action to help determine notability. Benboy00 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT not only doesn't require a Keep vote, it specifically reflects deletion. "With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links."--Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content is not the same as deleting an article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read both sentences I quoted? (The "red links" it refers to is what Wikipedia displays when a Wikilink points to an article that does not exist; in context, a deleted article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TNT is an essay not a guideline or rule. My understanding of TNT was that it retained the article history, but since it appears whoever wrote that essay wanted it to mean also delete article history as well, I will no longer be quoting TNT in AfD since it implies a Delete vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, my point is that a lot of these are promotional: They don't really say much if anything about RoAne. Rather, they are RoAne on RoAne and her work. The Sentinel article for example, is basically quotes with mention of her book. I don't think anyone is questioning that it was written by a "journalist". The problem is that these may not really be independent of RoAne. She is in the promotion business. Perhaps some of these were arranged, which happens frequently (as it evidently did with the very article we are debating) The bottom line is that the egregiousness of WP:PROMOTION make it very difficult for a disinterested party to give an objective assessment. TNT is procedural either way...no need to "keep" for that. Agricola44 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Actually she is in the self-help business, she write self-help books on how to network and be socially outgoing, her main target audience is women, she is a feminist writer, sort of a boot camp coach to get women to be more assertive and independent. Perhaps more relevant to a slightly older generation than is participating here. As for the Sentinel article, that's an acceptable article for determining notability. We would expect such a source to contain quotes from RoAne and her book. If it didn't, there would be complaints of trivial coverage. Can't have it both ways. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to quibble over the semantics of whether self-help-to-promote-yourself is being in the "promotion business". Let me be blunt: An article like the one in the Sentinel would be helpful under normal circumstances. However, the egregious WP:PROMOTION that we now know to exist in this particular case (including the paid-for article we are debating) raises real and serious doubts about whether these "interview"-type sources are, in fact, independent of RoAne. We now know that Ms. RoAne (or a party acting on her behalf) goes to great lengths for the purposes of promotion. Those articles may just be more instances of the same. It has "poisoned the well", essentially placing the burden of proof on those sources to somehow demonstrate an independence that we would automatically accept under regular circumstances. You and I typically have long threads of argumentation that usually end with me retiring from the debate. I'm going to try to do that now. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Might suggest your zeal against paid editors is clouding judgement of the sources. People hire paid editors for all sorts of reasons, not all bad reasons, nor is it against the rules, in particular when someone has extensive media coverage over 25 years as a popular author and speaker. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All kinds of reasons, not all bad – agree! – but not in this case. Please see my comments below on what's at stake for Ms. RoAne and her $10,000-per-appearance speaking business. Might I suggest that we not allow WP to function as a shill for this person, in violation of WP:PROMOTION? I repeat that what it comes down to is this: can you demonstrate that these sources are independent of Ms. RoAne? It seems the answer is no. Agricola44 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• PROMOTION is a content rule not topic level. Articles can exist if they are notable, period. That you might believe the article's existence is promotion is a personal bias. Marketing people who charge 10,000 for speaking engagements can be notable. We don't throw out a 25-year career of persistent and wide media coverage just because she is a marketing person. You provided no evidence that these sources are unreliable other than the fact that she is a marketing person. We don't bias against people based on what they do for a living. Please stop attacking this person based on her career choice - there's nothing "insidious" about being a marketing person or charging for speaking engagements. The sources are reliable, persistent over a 25-year career, significant coverage, in a wide diversity of outlets. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You provide no evidence that the sources are independent and I think the circumstances put the burden of proof there. We're at an impasse. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Given the mainstream status of these sources (USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly etc) the burden is really on you to show they are unreliable. We use these sources throughout Wikipedia. We generally rely on these sources implicitly unless there is direct evidence otherwise. The only evidence you have provided is a personal dislike and distrust of marketing people. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's that she managed to get a paid promo article into WP under everyone's noses, including yours. These sorts of articles threaten the entire NPOV reputation of WP. You're just not seeing the larger picture in that. best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Things are not so bad, if anything Wikipedia has an equally greater problem of deleting notable content that shouldn't be deleted. When I see Speedied and AFC archives I cringe since parts of it are salvageable and notable. That's a big driver of paid editors, the over zelous deletions force people to get outside help. I understand what you're saying but I am not a paid editor and I think this topic is notable under our guidelines. The ends of punishing paid editors doesn't justify the means of deleting notable topics. In fact doing so creates unexpected consequences. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had argued for keep on the basis of library holdings despite the obviously promotional intent and nature of the article, but that it was paid editing turns the balance for me also. If there is to be an article on her, it would best be done by removing this and starting over. The meaning of library holding for self-help books varies with the field, but for how to get ahead or get started in business, there is currently a great demand for them. PW reviews are not routine, btw, they review about 5% of the total book production. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably best to vote on the sources per GNG and not who wrote the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Having been produced by a paid editor is neither here nor there. The article does not sit as overtly promotional or a NPOV violation and this is a simple notability question. I don't opine much on authors and don't see any reason to do so here other than to note that this subject should be considered on its own merits and not based upon what anyone feels about paid editing — which is not a violation of our policy and guidelines. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree there. On a practical basis, we can categorize folks as clearly non-notable which would distract from the encyclopedia goals ("Brenda likes kittens"), the clearly notable where it would speak badly of our efforts if they weren't include ("He was the 37th president of the United States"), and a great mass in the middle who we could include but do not have to. We have some leeway. If we lean a bit toward deletion of promo articles by paid creators, we discourage their business and thus discourage them from continuing that business, which wastes other editors time as they strip away the promo and try to justify some usable article beneath. (Paid promo writers are more a problem than unpaid, because the unpaid will likely limit themselves to their own projects and products; paid will keep at it as long as they can find clients.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The point I was trying to make above is that the insidious level of WP:PROMOTION here muddies the waters immensely. It's now very difficult to distinguish what could be genuine, independent-of-the-subject indicators of notability versus what is carefully-engineered puffery/promo/advert. Contrary to what's been asserted by Cardamom and Carrite, this is not like any other case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. Perhaps User:Benboy00 suggests the best way ahead for this (and other paid articles): delete, and if any person independent of the subject (and this AfD debate) finds the topic to be notable enough then let them recreate it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That's just making stuff up as you go. There is no policy-based reason for doing this, merely your opinion. There is no formal ban on paid editing. There is no informal ban on paid editing, as much as some Wikipedians wish there was. This is a straight up-or-down call based upon our General Notability Guideline and the Special Notability Guideline for authors. If people can't limit themselves to making the call on this basis, they should pack up their POV in a suitcase and move along. Carrite (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If "paid editing" is part of a larger promotional agenda – and there is very good information in this particular case that it is (selling books and increasing paid speaking engagements, the 2 businesses RoAne is in; Ms. RoAne's speaking fee minimum is $10,000, so there is ample motivation to game WP for material gain) – then there most certainly is "policy based" reason for doing this: WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia is not a shill and it is our policy not to be used to promote a 10K-a-pop motivational speaking business. Agricola44 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Please stop using this AfD as a battleground to push anti paid-editing agendas. There is no policy against paid editing. PROMOTION is not a proxy rule for deleting paid editor articles. PROMOTION does not say notable articles should be deleted because of paid editors. It says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". The existence of this article is not promotional any more than any other article on Wikipedia. Just because she is in marketing and charges 10,000 for speaking engagements is not a valid reason to delete a best-selling popular author and speaking with a 25 year career covered widely in the media. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but to argue "this article is not promotional any more than any other article on Wikipedia" is patent nonsense. If indeed this is a "paid-for" article, it is the very essence of promotion on WP. Compensated editors are supposed to act according to WP:NOPR. You and I are not going to change each other's minds, so please argue-on without me. My advice, once again, is to tear this down and let disinterested editors start it over, if they so deem. Allowing it to stay as-is is tantamount to allowing WP to shill for this person. Thanks Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• My Keep vote is not to be a "shill for this person". My vote is based solely on the rules of notability and sourcing. Your vote should be rules-based too. WP:NOPR doesn't say paid articles should be deleted nor does it trump WP:NOTE and GNG. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're using the Book-of-the-Month Club information from the article to refer to her as a "best-selling author", please realize that that's a pretty weak form of bestsellerdom. It's sales by a single retailer (for that matter, just one of many brands for that retailer) with a purposely limited selection, not an overview of general sales. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment First, about notability. By the usual standards of notability for authors, she's borderline notable. Multiple very widely held books from major publishers in the subject like Wiley, translations into multiple languages multiple reviews, some substantative In contrast, I am extremely reluctant to accept notability as a public speaker--this is a field where I consider even national level awards to be contaminated by PR, let alone the usual newspaper material. Fortunately, most public speakers have something to speak about, and we can look for notabity in that field. In her case, it's as a business networking expert. I'm not sure I would really accept it--her notability would be as a author who writes about that subject for the public, not as an expert in it. I am similarly very reluctant to accept notability as a consultant, but here again there's often some subject-based notability on the basis of which the individual is consulted.( I'm particularly reluctant with speakers and others who claim notability as life coaches and similar areas.)

Second, about COI. The unfiltered work of paid editors is unlikely to be acceptable here, though there are a few editors who have been successful in learning our requirements for sourcing and objectivity, as proven in the only way it can be proven, by their work here. But for any good-faith paid writer, there are several established ways of filtering the work: the editor can use talk space and ask for someone establshed to look at it; the editor can use AfC--and hope for a competent reviewer; some non-COI editort who understands how to do articles on the topic can take a hand in it. I've helped paid editors with notable topics in all three of these ways, and in each case I accept a ceertain degre of responsibility for the result (provided the COI editor doesn't come back and mess it up). If it is in my fields of competence and I don't want to take some degree of responsibility, I leave it for others or I try to get it deleted. And most of the time, deleted is the appropriate fate of such articles) . With volunteer editors also, many of them produce work that is only acceptable after revision, and the same methods of filtering apply. In this particular case, the principal contributors are Benboy, GreenCardamon , and NatGertler. Of the 3, it seems only GreenC is willing to defend the article at this point, but I consider the editing of all 3 sufficient to remove the promotionalism.. This is all that's required. On balance, this leaves it dubious It's true the ed. here was an undeclared paid ed., but this is still permitted by the current rules. Even tho I would require paid editors and others with COI to declare themselves, even this is not necessarily always reason for deletion if others have taken responsibility. (I cannot check from here if she is the sock of a previously banned editor, but even so we have sometimes in rare cases accepted the articles if responsible people have been willing to work on them.) 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

modified; looking at the whole thing again, my original opinion is actually the one I still hold. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me a bit because we have votes from both DGG and DGG (at NYPL), and according to the latter's user page, it is just a second account for the same user. Now usually, when I see two !votes from one user, I just cross out the first !vote... but usually, it's two !votes in the same direction. I doubt that this is intended to be incompetent sockpuppetry, but if we could DGG and/or DGG@NYPL could clarify their situation and comments, it would be appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems DGG has weighed-in twice with contradictory !votes. I agree with Nat: normally one is immediately struck, but I think in this case we should defer to DGG himself to reconcile matters. I'll put a polite reminder on his talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

adjusted-- thanks for spotting this. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If anyone was unconvinced before, I think it's pretty difficult to argue deletion on Wikipedia policy grounds after Green Cardamom's work above. I understand the bad taste recent events have left in our mouths concerning COI, but the fact is that alone just isn't a good enough reason for deletion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed by the number of trivial mentions found. It just means that the subject has an industrious PR team. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No evidence for that. Some of the sources aren't even positive. --Green Cardamom (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think it's helpful to trivialize paid promotion as just a "bad taste". This phenomenon is one the biggest foundational problems facing WP today because it undermines the very credibility of the entire project as an unbiased, objective knowledgebase. I think this is best illustrated by the fact that organized action is now being taken, for example (1) the Wikimedia Foundation is asking paid editors to cease and desist (widely covered in the media, e.g. in PC World and Guardian) and (2) paid accounts are being identified and permanently blocked, as is the case with ScoringGoals14 that created this article. Even if it is kept on this particular AfD, this article will continue to have problems because of its paid-for taint. The best solution is WP:NUKEANDPAVE, so that (presuming RoAne is indeed notable), a fresh untainted article can be created to replace this one. I hope the "keeps" here might reconsider in light this perspective. Thank you, Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment While I haven't decided my ultimate position on this (it's "weak" either way), I will note that the promotional nature of the initial edits still has echoes in what's going on in the stripped-down version, per recent back-and-forth over whether such things as a one-sentence quote from the subject in Cosmo is vital enough to mention in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @Agricola44: - the article is so small right now what will nukeandpave accomplish? Whoever recreates it will likely use many of the sources already cited there and by Green Cardamom here. Regardless of the amount of bad press has resulted -- regardless of how bad the problem is -- what part of the deletion procedure and AfD criteria says "if the article was previously the product of paid editing, delete no matter what?" --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Paid editing does not demonstrate non-notability. However, the article needs to be rewritten to a neutral version. Epicgenius (talk)18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I and others here agree. The question is how to go about it. What do you think of simply starting over, whereby there would no longer be any association with the "pay" problem of the original article? Agricola44 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I've edited the article and added reliable sources. Those sources need to be worked into the article at some point, but I don't believe there should be any concerns of neutrality at this point. If there are, please specify which words and/or sources are not neutral so they can be addressed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just undid this edit, as it seems to mess up the article pretty badly. Adding them to the talk page sounds like a good idea, so that they can be incorporated as and when they are used in the text. At the moment, the article is pretty much a stub. If this person is considered slightly notable, then this seems like an appropriate length of article, although maybe the lead should be a few (one or two) lines longer. Benboy00 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From the five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. It is in the best interest of a credible encyclopedia to keep out advertising and promotion. To protect Wikipedia and uphold it's integrity we should put aside other considerations and delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had a large and contentious vote recently if paid editors should be allowed on Wikipedia. There were some passionate views expressed against paid editors, such as the one you express here, but no consensus was achieved. --Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG, Duffbeerforme, and especially per Agricola44 who points out just how deep this web of promotion goes. When the best sources presented (by one paid to do so, no less!) are promotional and inadequate, it can safely be assumed that there is nothing out there to satisfy our notability guidelines. Stripped of its promotional sources, the article is nothing but a short stub about a nonnotable author. ThemFromSpace 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "deep web of promotion" is a dramatic fiction. No one has presented evidence that the sources are the result of PR. In fact, some of the book reviews are negative. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Editors should be aware of the symbiotic relationship between publicists and journalists. The former are paid to distribute press releases or other material to journalists with the object of promoting their employer's interests. The latter publish (sometimes even verbatim) the material to fill their journals' pages and earn their living. Thus the presence of a large number of trivial mentions of a matter may mean no more than that a large amount of money has been spent on public relations. This comprises a significant part of the material published in today's media. Wikipedia editors need to have the discernment to recognize such material when they find it. Green Cardamom's industry and zeal are beyond reproach, but what he has dug up is not precious metal but the fool's gold of the vapid effluvia of the public relations industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  Some of the sources are so clearly independent they say negative/critical things about RoAne. I hate to go down this road of pulling up negatives about RoAne just to prove the sources have independence, we shouldn't have to do that, sources are not required to say critical things in order to be independent. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the sources are critical does not mean they are independent. PR hacks do not always get the response they desire to the blurb they issue. Have you heard the saying "The only bad publicity is no publicity". Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Style/layout errors? Benboy00 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources will pass at WP:RSN (from outside neutral parties). Your claims are unfounded and unsupported. There is no evidence these sources are the result of "publicists" or "PR hacks". Stop trying to disparage a 25 year career as nothing more than the result of PR, you really have no idea what you are talking about and are just making stuff up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The length of a person's career is irrelevant for Wikipedia's BLP policy. Wikipedia has a full and clear warning of the dangers of writing an article about oneself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I question if it is appropriate to canvas at the list of content for rescue consideration before closure of an AfD? One Keep vote from an active member of the squadron arrived an hour after the canvas was made. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  AfD is the purpose of Article Rescue Squadron see Wikipedia:ARSSCOPE#Scope. Create an RfC or post at CANVAS if you must however this topic is likely old news and well covered in past discussions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Read through the articles about her, such as the two referenced in the article right now, and she clearly passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is now an ongoing content dispute with the article. I tried to compromise and remove any trace of paid editing but also include the 30+ sources found above,[1] User:Dream Focus wants to be more inclusive of the original sources which has merit,[2] and User:Benboy00 (nominator) has reverted both to a very stripped down version with almost no text or sources.[3] Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The person trying to delete the article at AFD, should not blank a large portion of the article. Listing how many major newspapers and magazines publish a writer's work, is standard in articles for them. No possible reason to remove that or the information about her education. Dream Focus 03:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well this is getting a little peculiar. @Green Cardamom: how is this version of the article an acceptable "compromise"? 5% article, 20% a list of her work, 75% "additional references" and "book reviews." (??) Perhaps this is a more appropriate discussion to have on the article talk page, but I do have to sympathize with Benboy00 on this one, even though I'm in favor of keeping the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I was trying to compromise with the deletionists who complained there was text in the article written by a paid editor, so I gutted the entire article to a 2-sentence stub, removed sources which deletionists had complained about, and added the 30+ reliable sources I found above which are significantly more in depth. The book reviews are of course important for keeping see WP:AUTHOR #3 they establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The book reviews establish notability, so link them here or on the talk page if not working them into the actual text of the article. It still has to be an encyclopedia article, after all. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If the books get reviews, they are notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 10:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for those challenging the sources Green Cardamom listed: on what basis are you dismissing what appears to be a glut of references? Speculation about publicists' relationships to publishers or newspaper/magazine editors, being speculation, has no business being part of this discussion. If it's a reliable source it's a reliable source. Is there evidence? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article in its original form served not to inform, but to promote. The article in its current form serves not to inform, but merely to excuse its own existence. It is big sodding list of reference that are there merely to claim this person is notable and thus deserves an article. This does not make for a healthy article. It may arguably fit the rules of Wikipedia, but it does not serve the goals of Wikipedia. Subject may be of sufficient notability that she is an acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article, but she is not of such notability that her non-inclusion until someone is willing to write a proper article would be damaging to our efforts. WP:TNT --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is (supposedly) a topic level discussion about the mere existence of a topic. The state of the article shouldn't be that much of a factor as it's surmountable with editing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. References exist to prove the information in the article, and all of them are perfectly valid. Dream Focus 10:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors have been lading this article with every reference they could find, it seems, and it doesn't serve the article; it seems to be material only placed in there for making the AfD. Author articles in Wikipedia would not typically have a yard-long list of reviews. They would not typically include a citation for the subject having a one-sentence quotation on the Cosmo website or two local radio interviews (they might include the interviews in "external links" if the interview was illuminative). Sources are being pointed to not for information but to show that sources exist. It's basically having an article not on the subject, but on the reason the subject should have a Wikipedia page. That does not serve Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment concerning the article changes since the AfD began. As pointed out above, the nominator -- intentionally or not -- has made significant changes to the article post-nomination which weaken its case for keeping.
  • This is the version of the article when the AfD began.
  • Green Cardamom, in response, I think, to the discussion here, removed article text, extracting the references and copying them, with several others to "additional references" and "book reviews" at the bottom of the article (see [diff). While I understand his good faith reasons for doing so, I don't myself agree with the move. Neither, it seems, did Benboy00, who just deleted all of them without restoring the text (i.e. instead of reverting).
  • Dream Focus then restored a version very similar to the article as it was when nominated. This was also reverted.
  • The result is a version far inferior to what it was when nominated. I'm not saying anyone acted in bad faith, but it highlights the potential problems when nominators or others with a vested interest in an AfD make substantial and controversial changes to the article mid-process. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just revert the guy. If I keep reverting him it'll be seen as edit warring. Need someone else to revert him also. There is no possible justification for his content removal. Dream Focus 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that that would be a good starting place if someone wants to rebuild the article. From what I can tell, this is what Green Cardamom believes also. He also included a lot of unused sources, which I agree could be used in a rebuild, but should not be put on the actual article itself unless/until they are used, and should instead be kept on the talk page. I still believe that this person is non-notable, and should not have an article at all, but if I am wrong, the issue of paid editing is still apparently very important to a large number of those voting in this AfD. Many people seem to favour at least a rewrite, which this version is appropriate for. I'm sorry if editing during the AfD caused any significant confusion among voters, although I assumed that it was standard practice. If that isn't allowed, then it seems that Green Cardamom is also in the wrong (although I do not think he is). I shall put a link at the top of the AfD for anyone who wants to look at the article pre-changes. On the point about no possible justification, this is incorrect. There are several possible justifications, one of which is that the edit removes the material that is considered promotional by many in this AfD. You may not agree with this justification (I assume you dont), and that is fine, but say that no justification exists at all seems silly. Benboy00 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not escalate matters by inviting others to participate in edit warring. It will only invite the same behavior from the other side and make matters appreciably worse. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
        • If they believe the removal of content was wrong, they can hit UNDO same as I did. Dream Focus 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That it the very essence of edit warring. You seem to be inviting it and this will get you in trouble. Please take some friendly advice and do not pursue that line of action any further. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
            • No, it isn't. If two editors are in dispute over something, a third needs to get involved. There has been no valid reason given for the removal of that information. As I said on the talk page, She is notable for being a writer, so mentioning what newspapers and magazines she has written for, is something that should be in the article. This is something commonly found in articles for writers, linking to what notable places they have written for. Dream Focus 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm afraid this demonstrates is the very phenomenon I described above: the "well is poisoned" for this article because of the underhanded way it was created, i.e. as a paid, but undisclosed advocacy piece whose purpose was to directly benefit the subject monetarily in terms of promoting her consulting business and increasing her lucrative fee-based public speaking appearances. This is very unsettling to most editors, who work for the benefit of WP and understand that such articles undermine the very credibility of the entire WP project as an unbiased, objective knowledgebase. If kept, the article will very likely continue to have the same problems as it is now experiencing. The only reasonable way around this is WP:NUKEANDPAVE. If the article is recreated properly, it will be free of taint. Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Is this a haunted well, where ghost will haunt us forever? What are you talking about? There is no possible reason to be hating the article, just because how it got started. And destroying it just to recreate it with the exact same information in it, makes no sense at all. Just wasting everyone's time there. Dream Focus 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for playing the "hate card". Can I expect the "Hitler card" in short order? Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Stop the drama and escalation will you please? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Green Cardamom, can I ask, is that what you wanted when you did that edit that I removed the extra sources from ( i.e. you thought that the article should be rewritten, and you were providing sources that could be used as well as trimming the article down to unobjectionable content)? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Benboy00 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you're frustrated, but the discussion will be derailed very quickly by Ad hominem comments about hating and invitations to edit war such as are now coming from Dream Focus. I think it's important that we maintain some order and decorum and such responses are not helpful. I'm sorry I seem to be the "adult in the room" that has to point this out. Now, shall we get back to topic and discuss the article itself? Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• You hate/dislike the article because of how it was created, and suggested wasting everyone's time by deleting it just to recreate it again without the "taint". There is no "hate card", nor did I encourage edit warring. Stop being so melodramatic. Dream Focus 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What did you think you were doing when you said "just revert the guy. If I keep reverting him it'll be seen as edit warring"? Please stop that. Thank you. Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: - your argument about "taint," "tinge," and the spectre of wikipromotion still lacks merit in this deletion procedure. Relevant to Wikipedia and to the article? Absolutely -- and in fact this is far more effort than I ever thought I'd spend defending a former PR article -- but as you're using the arguments here amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also that it's likely to be the target of paid editing in the future is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. So what of the reasons for deletion is it? Notability? Then specifically what notability criteria does it fail, taking into consideration the glut of sources that have appeared here? You based an earlier comment on the speculation that "The problem is that these may not really be independent of RoAne. She is in the promotion business." May not really be? What kind of system would we have if that kind of baseless doubt-casting determined outcomes of these discussions? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the first part of your point, I refer you to DGG's very convincing arguments above regarding notability, the sources, etc. As to your second point, I invite you to think about the financial motivations Ms. RoAne has for this article, the circumstances of how this article was created and who had the motivation to pay for it, and how this article might be perceived by readers at large as a conflict-of-interest and non-neutral and then ask yourself 2 questions; (1) Despite a list of references that verify Ms RoAne's existence, her books, etc., is it possible that the article itself is un-encyclopedic or is here for un-encyclopedic purposes? (2) Is it possible that this article and others like it might hurt the credibility of WP? I and some others here have legitimate concerns about these issues and feel their gravity far outweighs the importance of a single article on a borderline-notable individual (remember, I !voted weak keep on 1st AfD) and feel absurd accusations about "hating" the article and invitations to others to revert-in-kind are extremely unhelpful. This AfD has taken much time, so I'm retiring to the sidelines now. I hope the discussion can get back on track. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• To claim that Agricola44 is arguing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is to, frankly, ignore what he (and apparently others) are saying, much of which addresses the question of whether this article has an appropriate encyclopediac nature. To insist that the argument for deletion be phrased in terms of WP:DEL-REASON is to ignore the actual text there, which makes clear that the reasons for deletion "are not limited to" the reasons listed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trevj#Q11 is relevant because it gives an opinion on this AfD. The fact that it was "at a fixed point in time" doesn't make it more or less valid than any other comment. Benboy00 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:BASIC. Per my comment of 12:11, 25 November 2013 above, I'm still not able to access and therefore evaluate those sources. If able to do so, I could decide whether to move from the delete view I put forward in the previous AfD. As it is, I can't - therefore my view is weakened rather than fully changed. It seems that perhaps we should have an article on one of the subject's most notable books (presumably How To Work a Room) and then redirect this title there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.