Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Rae-Kelly

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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rae-Kelly[edit]

Vanity page about non-notable minister; reads like spam. Prod tag removed by author. JuJube 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like spam, looks like spam .. Quack. No trace of notability given. EliminatorJR 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per aboveOo7565 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE BY AUTHOR:>>>

Wikipedia is full of articles of people who make significant contributions to society. This article is similar in content and grammatically superior to many of these. There is no attempt at vanity here; this is purely informative and demonstrative of the background faith journey and commitment of a highly popular Catholic Lay Theologian and speaker whose work reaches out to thousands of faithful across three continents. The proposed reasons for deletion here appear based on notability and vanity, neither apply as the subject's website clearly shows (has the proposer read this??). Is it because this is a religious topic? Religious person? Please advise. As for the spam claim, this may be a stylistic issue based on the content. If the deletion is based on style, please advise. This is a first time posting and can be improved if advice rather than criticisim is offered. - John Rae-Kelly (article author)

Comment Please don't try to claim that articles are accepted or rejected because of people's tastes on religion or anything else. The reason the article has been proposed for deletion is because it doesn't meet the standards that Wikipedia articles require. Here they are for you.
- Verifiability - Read WP:V and WP:BIO - no verifiable sources about the subject are quoted, bar her own website, which can't count.
- Notability - Read WP:N- why is the subject notable enough? And again, independent sources are required.
- Spam - Read WP:SPAM - the plug for ARK Ministries, obviously the subjects own, violates this.
- "This article is similar in content...." No, it isn't because pages that remain must assert verifiability and notability. Please also read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
- "...and gramatically superior" Really.
- Finally, try also WP:ILIKEIT
- And of course, if most or all of these guidelines can be met, then the article stands a good chance of remaining.

EliminatorJR 12:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:COI to bear in mind. Ohconfucius 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE 2 BY AUTHOR:>>>

Thank you for the excellent advice and even the occasional terse editorial comment (ergo "really"). It is extremely beneficial to a first time wiki user to learn from more practiced users such as yourself. I assure you that the grammatical standard of the sample sites I have visited has been varied indeed. In terms fo your main points, I will revise the article accordingly and hopefully meet your editorial standard.

~~Speedy~~ delete as copyvio I was going through the article trying to clean it up and see where the various links pointed and if they were relevant as sources to indicate notability when I found Anna Rae-Kelly's webpage. About half-way down the page is her bio. Most of the article is a word for word copy of that bio. There is a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage. Notability is moot at this point - the article is a copyvio and should go. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:20, 21 February 2007 (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.