Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ursula owen

:{{la|Ursula Owen}} ([{{fullurl:Ursula Owen|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ursula owen}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article seems to be autobiographical and doesn't seem to meet notability guidlines. Also has not had any substantial edits to bring it up to inclusion. Ryanthewebguy (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (and clean-up). The Guardian's [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jul/21/pressandpublishing.politicsphilosophyandsociety review] establishes notability. The article may have started as an autobiography. However the quality of the text is good and appears neutral, although it would benefit from more rigorous referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article is written in a factual manner and reads similarly to other person entries on Wikipedia. In what way does it seem too autobiographical? Also I agree with Axl that the guardian piece does show notability and that there are lesser known people on wikipedia. The lack of substantial edits is due to people not editing not due to the person's entry. Sheerin84 (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Pure vanispamcruftisement created by the subject ({{User|U0wen}}) in violation of WP:COI … insufficient WP:RS to establish meeting WP:BIO criteria … Happy Editing! — {{#if:141.156.165.77|{{User|141.156.165.77}}|141.156.165.77 (talk)}} _{12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)}

• Keep Being "[p]ure vanispamcruftisement" does not meet automatic deletion. The subject passes WP:BIO so the article should be kept. See [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060218/asp/calcutta/story_5856154.asp this article] from The Telegraph and [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jul/21/pressandpublishing.politicsphilosophyandsociety this in-depth profile] from The Guardian. Without question, Ursula Owen is notable. Cunard (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, I guess I am still learning what is notable and what is not. Cunard, after reading your talk page about not wanting to become an admin, I now see why. It seems like this article resembles some of the articles you talked about that may have been deleted quicker. I am glad that I got my hands dirty by coming here. Ryanthewebguy (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Yes, adminship is not in my future. Anyway, I've wikified and sourced this article so that it establishes clear notability. Contrary to what 141.156.165.77 said above, this article was not "[p]ure vanispamcruftisement". I read through the article and have determined that it is not an autobiography. Although this article was created by {{user|U0wen}}, it did not contain POV and tone issues that are present in all autobiographies.

Before you nominate an article for deletion, remember to search for sources on Google, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar. That's why I do, and that's why nearly all of the articles I've nominated for AfD have been deleted. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:58, 19 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.