Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Saba

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. --MCB 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Saba

Laura Saba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No notability established. Appears to have co-authored a book, perhaps two or tree; one of which ("Homeschooling Companion") may be a serious work. The rest is "based on an interview" with the subject of the author. Lots of claims of fabulous products, games, web sites, "well over 1000 projects", awards, groundbreaking work, future products and books, whatnot; little of which is shown to exist, much less evidence of being notable. No sources allowing for a genuine WP:NPOV, non-spammy, non-WP:COI article to be written. Weregerbil 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing found in Google News Archive (not even a review). Only Google Books results are her own works. Fails WP:BIO. Created by Timequaker (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account (who, according to article Talk page, "won't be back"). --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I had a single-purpose account was I got disgusted with the whole wikipedia process - it is illogical when you see something like John Taylor-Gatto - far less noteworthy in the same field - not be questioned, but someone industry folks know to be far more 'noteworthy' being attacked like this. So I got disgusted with the Wikipedia process. If you search "Laura Saba" under google in general or yahoo you will find dozens of reviews, particularly of The McGraw-Hill Homeschooling Companion. I don't understand Dhartung's inability to find those. I asked weregerbil to provide an understanding to a 'newbie' like myself as to how this works and there was no response other than an addition of 'tags' again. I find that to be elitist - it doesn't seem Wikipedia is serious about wanting to produce accurate stories or to encourage outside participation when admins don't respond and instead post new tags. I was simply trying to UNDERSTAND so that future entires to wikipedia would NOT have such issues. Weregerbil only seemed bent on discrediting mine and others' entries - not on helping us understand the process. Sad commentary on the wiki process - I once counted on it. However, I've now an interesting topic for my PhD thesis so I'm grateful to weregerbil for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timequaker (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• one of the most reputed homeschool review groups posted a review at http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art6205.asp again I don't understand how dhartung claims there are no reviews there are dozens and dozens out there and this book has been featured in virtually all homeschooling magazines and mentioned in many other homeschooling books. Perhaps the trouble is that with the nature of homeschooling, as homeschoolers tend to have a 'distrust' of the government and organized approaches, too much of their workings are NOT on the web - including most of the industry oriented magazines of which there are 14 - but only 4 have any online presence. Perhaps admins should need to understand the industry they are attacking before passing judgment? Otherwise it demonstrates a certain ignorance of the standards which they are utilizing to judge, given the standards of judgment fail in the instance off movements and industries that fall outside 'the box'. The qualifications utilzed to attack this entry - a true one - fall short herein. John Taylor Gatto is known to pay to have his work promoted endlessly, so he meets your requirements, though all within this movement know truths. Confusing, this whole Wikipedia approach. I'm not here to argue I could care less whether you keep this article here or not - i'm just perplexed that an admin, when A) asked for clearer understanding, ignores it instead, when wikipedia supposedly prides itself on encouraging participation and B) not caring to examine an issue more closely when they come upon something that doesn't fit inside a little box. For such a groundbreaking technology as wiki is, you would think those involved would stay on top of things rather than locking themselves into a little box. The reason for not wanting to continue 'conversation' or 'coming back' is because I cannot discuss with someone who has already made up their mind, and done so based upon 'standards' that in this case cannot reflect truth. disappointing, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timequaker (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE This article is poorly written and hard to understand, after wading through all the POV stuff it appears that the very nice lady who is the subject of this article just doesn't meet WP:BIO. Through the history of this article and its talk page other Wikipedians have tried in vain to help. When it comes down to it, we just don't have verifiable, reliable sources showing any evidence that Laura Saba is notable or well-known enough to be in an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - high-profile, well-published, clearly notable author. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article, I do not find notability "clear". Could you expand a bit on why you think she meets WP:BIO, e.g. which independent sources make her notable? --B. Wolterding 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Lots of assertions (and wordiness), but WP:BIO isn't being met I don't think (too much verbiage to plough through). Cute though :) --WebHamster 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just a reminder that poor writing, wordiness and (correctable) POV are not reasons for deleting an article but are reasons for cleaning it up. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as she's clearly notable and it has sources (although I haven't checked or verified. Now, I think the whole movement is inane, but that's no reason to delete. Really needs a clean-up, not a deletion. Bearian 18:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, I made a crack on wikifying the article. 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

• Delete. The question here is: Can we find substantial independent coverage about the person in reliable sources? (Not publications by her, and also not publications by organizations she is affiliated with etc.) The article actually lists 23 footnotes. I tried to verify against these sources; but I found none (in those available to me) that would support notability. The most promising (if unavailable to me) seem to be an article in the Guardian and one in the Washington Times; most others seem to be trivial or not independent. Perhaps someone else with access to the newspaper archives could check. But consering that the article otherwise makes many trivial claims in illustrious words (she has a Red Cross Instructor certification! I'm amazed!), I am not inclined to believe without verification that those newspaper articles contain nontrivial coverage about the subject. I have no prejudice towards recreation of an article that reduces to notable, verifiable facts. But this would need a complete rewrite anyway. --B. Wolterding 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM--AmerHisBuff 09:31, 9 September 2007 (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.