Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Devine (Second nomination)

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 Speedy keep. This article was originally nominated by a sock puppet of an indefinitely banned user. Non-admin close. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betsy Devine

Betsy Devine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable author or journalist
This is a vanity piece by a current wikipedian. It does not meet WP:BIO

• The person is not regarded as an important figure and is not is widely cited by their peers or successors.
• The person is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
• The person has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work has not become a significant monument, a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Detele per User:Sur de Filadelfia, WP:N, WP:RS (aka not citations from a blog!) and WP:BIO. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as this is a bad faith nomination. User:Sur de Filadelfia encountered User:Betsythedevine on the epicaricacy AFD page, where s/he commented, "What the hell is wrong with Betsythedevine?...Somebody should slap Betsy's hands for abusing process. " Soon after, s/he nominated this page for deletion. Per the reasoning given in the last AFD (where references to several independent reviews of her books were given), I don't see there's a need to renominate this. --C S (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as the rationale from AfD #1 seems to still hold. (Which basically is that she does, in fact, pass WP:BIO). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use some better references to meet 2008 standards, but seems to pass WP:BIO. Some appropriate googling shows that she is in fact "widely cited", at least enough for inclusion, and I found two reviews for one of her co-authored books to meet WP:BK. The nom does smell of bad faith. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, I call bad faith here. See User:C S' commentary above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up - Needs help, but the content itself is ok. asenine ^{say what?} 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant keep. AfD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As others have pointed out, this AfD comes hot on the heels of attacks on my edits elsewhere in Wikipedia. If I add references to this article I can be accused of even more vanity, but the Concord (NH) Monitor referred to me as "liberal blogger Betsy Devine" and a "sort of wiki-expert who has spoken at conferences and the like." A pdf transcript from Public Radio's Morning Stories says "one of our earliest broadcasts came from a woman named Betsy Devine, a small town resident from Manchester, New Hampshire and Princeton, New Jersey who discovered the power of blogging." Before I had a blog, the New York Times called me "a writer and an engineer." I gave talks at Wikimania 2006 (analysis of two different kinds of attacks on Wikipedia articles) and at Citizen Media 2006 (a description of my efforts to cover a the NH phone-jamming case that big media mostly ignored.) I have co-authored a couple of good books, altho my bio misstates my participation in a third. I was not a co-author of the essay collection Fantastic Realities, although 75 pages from my blog made up its final section. The book describes its own authorship as "Frank Wilczek with a contribution by Betsy Devine." The Times Higher Education reviewer had both good and bad things to say about that contribution! Basically, I am a blogger who has co-authored a couple of books and contributed to a third. I have also been cited for my work pursuing the NH phone-jamming scandal. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether the article about me should be deleted or improved. betsythedevine (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Many of the sources I find list her in the course of talking about her notable physicist husband Frank Wilczek, in which case she could be mentioned in his article. The sources which are her books and her blogs are not that convincing as to WP:BIO. More reviews and other substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources are needed as refs in the article. To avoid conflict of interest, the subject of an article should let others do the editing. She can list the refs on the article talk page. A starting point is a Google News search [1]. The trick is getting past the paywall to see which have more than passing references to her. Edison (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep enough for notability. DGG (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Besides, this nominator is a policy litter-bug. For despite a Jericho distribution of wiki-policy, nevertheless misses his or her intended target. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice - I don't mind that a Wikipedia has edited an article about themselves. It is technically frowned upon but in reality it can be a reasonable way to ensure that our biographies are accurate. However, not only has the Wikipedian edited the article, but she seemed to have created it as well. The evidence for this is that the first edit to the article was made by an IP address who also made the first edit to the Wikipedian's user page. The second edit to the article was made by the Wikipedian under their user account. If she is notable enough someone else will create an article on her. Therefore, I believe the article should be deleted, with no prejudice against recreation by another user. Force10 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per C S and Dhartung Dori (Talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see any claims to notability in the article that would satisfy our requirements. The books listed are not notable (regardless of how good they may be), giving a talk at Wikimania is not inherently notable, nor does the blog seem particularly notable (although after having read some of it, I think it is entertaining!). Yes, there is some coverage of the subject; that's to be expected of an individual that is married to a Nobel Prize winner and who has a web presence. Since notability isn't inherited, I just don't see that this article satisfies notability requirements. That being said, I believe that some of this may be merged with Frank Wilczek. BWH76 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Nomination made by proven sockpuppet of indefinetly banned user I think this closes the case. Aren't contributions by such users invalid? Let a legitimate user nominate this article if they wish. (And never, never feed the trolls) ike9898 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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.