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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rogers (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)

• This page has been nominated for deletion but the nominator has not yet posted the rationale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete articles are supposed to be built on sources about the subject, not on sources by them. This article is too much built on sources by Rogers. It in general is par for the course of 2007 and our extremely lax inclusion guidelines at the time. We have since decided that just getting a book published is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Inclined to agree with JPL but like to see the rationale before i put down something hard. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if there is a consensus for a delete, can this article be deleted if the nominator User:JesseRafe doesn't add a rationale? (I created this page because a red link was posted to the daily afd log and afd template was placed on the article which can't be removed because it would get reverted by a bot). - hako9 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also curious to see a rationale. At least one of her books attracted a number of reviews (Real Deal, Publishers Weekly, New York Observer) so she might pass WP:AUTHOR#3. pburka (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Lack of sourced references. Clear spam that has no place here. Breezy Memoir?! MaskedSinger (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete because the sources are not sufficiently reliable. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable, although she wrote a book, the article reads like PR + marketing --Devokewater (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nom still hasn't provided any rationale to delete, and, as I commented above, she's the author of at least one notable book. pburka (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Her book was reviewed widely, she's still active--and sought after--as a real estate "expert," and our AfD policy in regard to BLPs has become one where simply being written about in a few secondary sources is enough; why should this one be any different? (And I mean that only somewhat cynically). Caro7200 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I did add a rationale, it's not my fault no one could see it before I went on a Wikibreak, reasons for keeping due to "still not adding a rationale" are silly as can clearly be seen by my lack of contributions since. As others have noted, there's a complete lack of notability aside from writing a non-notable book and having a couple of bylines on various websites, and almost all the sources are primary. JesseRafe (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck the delete !vote made by the nominator himself. Nominator's delete vote is implied. - hako9 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Without a rationale we have nothing to rebut: thank you for providing one. Her "non-notable" book received at least three significant reviews in independent reliable sources, so it passes WP:NBOOK. At the very most, this article could be moved to Diary of a Real Estate Rookie and lightly edited to reflect the change in focus. pburka (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reviews found by pburka. Although perhaps technically the best thing would be to create an article for the book and redirect to that, it seems a bit wiki-lawyer-ish to delete an article on an author because her book is the notable thing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2020 (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.