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. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Baltzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable political activist; "sources" are mostly her own websites and fringe political publications with strong biases in her favor; no evidence of notability, but much pushing of her ideology and claims. "Sources" proposed on the talk page of the article are mostly cover-jacket-blurbs without sourcing, and the like (including one alleged e-mail to a Wikipedia editor). Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite the effort of the article's supporters there have not been secondary reliable sources found that discuss her in depth.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the long lists of links provided, a cursory glance shows that they are either (a) she herself (either personal reports or her own letters to editors, etc.) or (b) are blogs and other non-reliable sources (like via contacting a person who wrote an email). I just hope we have something beyond an appeal that it's censorship. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Eudemis below. Cleanup is necessary to keep it in line but that's not for AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With the controversy surrounding Palestinian issues and the online propaganda war being waged by both sides, it is easy to overlook her independent press coverage. While not the cover of Time Magazine, she has been the subject of several published articles from independent secondary sources that would qualify her as notable under the guidelines. The Missourian [1] The Providence Journal [2] The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA) [3] The Salt Lake Tribune [4] Golden Triangle Newspapers [5]--Eudemis (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Delete My concern looking at the earlier versions of this article is it was extremely POV. The originator may have a WP:COI in terms of editing and promoting this. I am also concerned that Baltzer is generating her own coverage rather than being truly notable. The articles seem to be human interest stories for a local speech to an interested group - I give talks, but it doesn't make me notable. Mohummy (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (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.