Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (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 Deleted John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability and offers little or no evidence for it. Moreover, after two and a half years the article still carries no references and the subject of this BLP ~~may have~~ both started the article and continues to aggressively contribute to it, hence drawing conflict of interest worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article has now asked that it be deleted (see also this and this). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable.--Michael White^T·C 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was close to nominating this article for deletion myself. Despite the large amount of time that has been given to allow sources to be found, none have turned up. The article used to assert coverage in major newspapers and research journals, but was never specific and a search for the subject on Google News and Google Scholar gets one hit. The article doesn't contain any assertion of notability - anyone can produce a self-published book. On top of these notability concerns, the article is a COI and BLP minefield and I see no reason to retain it. --Hut 8.5 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Esteffect (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article subject/creator has been blocked 72 hours for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A speedy close may be warranted on BLP grounds since the subject apparent now wants the article deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I've done some searches and could find nothing to show she is notable (eg no international headlines as the article claimed, etc). As the author now wants the article deleted and the whole thing has been a bit messy with accusations flying back and forth, if this can be dealt with quickly that would be good. Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gwen and Hut. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Insurmountable problems with WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BK, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SPS, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (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.