Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (3rd nomination)

I do not understand why wiki would delete page to Lila Rajiva. She is an active journalist, blogger and author of good repute. I can only describe such an action as politically motivated censorship. I ask you to reconsider this action. --Persianq (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The consideration to delete Lila Rajiva from Wikipedia seems completely misplaced as her written works provide unique insights into geopolitical affairs. As Lila's work can be undesirable exposure to some it is certainly very possible this action is politically motivated. I too hope this is reconsidered. —Preceding persianq comment added by DrPederson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lila Rajiva is an accomplished and a prolific author, blogger, and political theorist. I cannot think of a good reason to remove this informative entry from Wikipedia. Instead, the entry should be protected from whoever inappropriately recommended its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMontmorency (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

*Speedy keep. Procedural keep: no reason given for deletion. I missed the (brief) deletion rationale on the article's talk page. However this AfD is still incomplete. Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to delete this entry from Wikipedia. Lila Rajiva is supremely talented author, blogger, and free-thinker. This appears to be the work of an "anonymous" detractor with some type of agenda. I sincerely hope that you take her entire body of work into consideration and allow this Wikipedia entry to remain intact.--Efowlk1 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I was the person that tagged this for deletion. A proper reason for deletion was given on the articles discussion page, which is what wikipedia instructed me to do. This author is not notable and this is a vanity page, evidenced by the recent edits removing unproven assertions that Lila was 'first' to write about various subjects. I'm sure Lila appreciates all of her blogging friends circling the wagons to vote keep as they seemingly have every time this article is nominated for deletion, but this author clearly is not notable enough to merit having a wikipedia page with only two published works in her career. I would like to take this time to remind everyone that participates in this discussion that there is a wikipedia guideline about biased canvasing, and your similarly worded assertions that this person is a prolific author, blogger, etc do not make it so. Thanks for reading.74.237.158.41 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• She only has two books, but one of them is from a major publisher. Other issues you bring up can be resolved through editing rather than deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• While Wiley Publishing is a major publisher, it was done through an outfit named Agora Publishing. This seems to be a vanity press for Bill_Bonner. Other issues can be resolved through editing, previous self-promotional edits can be used as clues as to why this article exists in the first place, and why it continues to exist. For instance, this article was originally created by a politically motivated individual promoting his conspiratorial viewpoint on the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of this persons articles were deleted, but this one remained. I looked at the previous AfD and could only determine that it was kept because of biased canvasing through blogs and indymedia type outlets. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)