The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I've also put a coi tag on the article because it appears that the editor the nominator is in conflict with may represent some kind of "management company". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a poorly written publicity entry. I have made several attempts to make it more encyclopedic, but my changes are continually undone. As the article stands, it is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability can also be questioned, although this is NOT my reason for proposing deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that changes to improve the article are being reverted, take it to the talk page; if the reverting person refuses to talk to you, ask an admin to help.
The notability concern would be a reason to delete, if it wasn't for all the coverage in national newspapers she's had.
Overall, I'm going to go with snow keep because there's no chance whatsoever that this will be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]