Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Abrams

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Rhonda Abrams}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhonda_Abrams Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Rhonda Abrams}})

GNG fail. Unsourced and I do not see good sourcing in a search. Also, possibly the most promotional article I have ever seen, although that is not a strict criteria for deletion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• comment might be WP:GNG however seems promotional and sources are weak and mostly self published. I may circle back if the article is improved but for now it would be a strong delete Lubbad85 (☎) 20:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete promotional article on apparently self-published author. The promotionalism is made very evident by the convenient omission of the publisher of her books in the article--they are all published by "The Planning Shop"[https://planningshop.com] by Lightning Source, a print-on-demand publisher. . It's also made evident by the article referring to her by the first name alone in the text, a characteristic device of PR writers trying to sound informal (except ofcourse, in some fields of popular entertainment, but the subject is rying to be a writer of serious instructional books on business. It is possible that the books might sell enoguh that she might be notable, but if so the article would have to be startedover without the obvious coi. And a promotional article that cannot be improved without complete rewriting is absolutely a strict criterion for deletion--in fact, it's a criterion for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:*Good points. If you go to the "Planning Shop" website you will see that it is actually a company owned by the article subject: so all the books are indeed self-published, and we have no references in the article either.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.