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 delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Gushing autobiography which claims notability but provides no evidence of it. Once all the gushing self-congratulation is removed there's nothing left, except a bit of shouting. Ros0709 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The hyperbole is not supported by reliable sources, nor by google hits. One is tempted to call this vandalism, and submit it for speedy. In lieu of that, the article may have set a record for number of tags at the top. JNW (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources listed that are independent of the subject of the article are from the "International Society of Poets". This international society seems to be an organisation that anyone can join and as well as receiving a special gold membership pin will "...become one of the recognized leaders of your craft. Your friends, family, and colleagues will look to you as an example of experience, vision, and accomplishment in the poetic world...". Broadly this looks equivalent to vanity publishing so I believe this isn't a reliable source. Hence no notability established. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was told recently that it is not civil to accuse someone of vanity, merely because their first article is about themselves. I note that this is the author's only contribution to Wikipedia, and that it provides a link to www.joanneshaw.com, the official website for Joanne Shaw. For more about the "International Society of Poets", see Poetry.com here. Mandsford (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has accused anybody of vanity. The term "vanity publishing" and "vanity publisher" are widely used terms to describe organisations that allow self publication with no editorial oversight. See Vanity press. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the same token, nobody has accused anybody of being uncivil. Since Ms. Shaw is not in this discussion, we can safely observe that people who write Wikipedia articles about themselves are, indeed, vain. Perhaps this is some form of "performance art" in which someone is merely pretending to be narcissistic, and we are bit players in someone's work of improv theater. In any event, however, it has no place here on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as unverifiable self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-promotion with no independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 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.