Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Coulter

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 Keep - Yomangani^talk 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Coulter

It's unclear that Lynn Coulter is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article yet. Furthermore, the article has at various times read like a resume or an advertisement. I have noted the issues on the talk page previously but there still seem to be problems. The primary author may be Lynn Coulter herself, editing via a user name and an IP account. A. B. 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The book has multiple reviews from reliable and independent sources, and is published by a reputable publisher, the University of North Carolina Press. I added the ISBN. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.. The sheer number of reviews cited reads like something you put on the back cover of your book, in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. This author does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I know too many people who have books through university presses. I wrote a book published by a larger publisher than that, but my bio does not deserve an article in Wikipeida. Also, because the article does not cite sources, it does read somewhat like an ad or the author's personal bio. The author may be totally innocent, but the way it's written comes across as something she, her publicist, or a meatpuppet wrote, not quite as an encyclopedic entry. The book itself might be worthy of a WikiBooks entry, but the author is not. Doczilla 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to neutral. Although I still question the notability, I can't see any harm in leaving this stub now that it's not a soapbox. The article may need monitoring. Whoever turned it into an ad once can do so again. Doczilla 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • University presses publish a lot of scholarly books that are important but have limited press runs. Some also publish books for a broader market that they intend to make money on, as is the case here. I mentioned the name of the publisher mostly to show that it isn't a vanity press -- this is a book that both the author and the publisher will be making money on. The reviews themselves are sources, I think. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is still a résumé, although a much longer one than before; it isn't an encyclopedia article. It is conceivable that an encyclopedia article about Lynn Coulter could be written, if someone cares to put in the effort: so far, no one has. (Incidentally, the longest quote is copyrighted, and therefore needs to be deleted.) Andrew Dalby 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quoting an excerpt from a review is fair use. Almost all book reviews are copyright; including the copyright notice or an excerpt doesn't make it any more or less copyright. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course, if it is an excerpt, there's no problem: just do a bit of editing and delete the word "Copyright". I raised the issue because I had the impression that this was the whole review. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN bio/resume. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to everyone that's commented pro and con so far. It looks like there are two issues -- notability, then the article itself. Right now there's no consensus yet one way or the other. Should a consensus to delete fail to emerge, I strongly believe this article should be cut way back to an encyclopedic stub free of WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:OR, etc. Ms. Coulter (or preferably others) could then build it back one encyclopedic, non-vanity sentence at a time. I don't sense much appetite on anyone else's part to try to rework the big article for compliance. --A. B. 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll be glad to try when I'm at a terminal that can easily handle a massive restructuring, it actually won't be too difficult. I'm notoriously bad at follow-through on this sort of thing, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If you rewrite, it, Jeff, I'll vote to keep. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • "I'm notoriously bad at follow-through on this sort of thing" <-- that sounds so very much like me! I suggest we vote on the article as it is during the AfD, not based on our hopes. If Jeff gets to it during that time, then we can evaluate the article with his edits. Otherwise, we evaluate it as is. That puts Jeff under less pressure. Having said this, my own personal opinion remains that the article article merits deletion on grounds of notability; if that's the case, then not even Jeff can fix it. If, however, the consensus is that Lynn Coulter is notable, then the article is worth preserving as a neutral stub until Jeff recreates it.--A. B. 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. As things stand, I stick with my Delete vote given above. Andrew Dalby 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - rewritten. It still needs work, but it's a viable stub now and doesn't read like a resume. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done, Jeff. A real transformation. After all that work, better keep it. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten; sufficient notability established in the article. Kudos to Jeff. -Kubigula (ave) 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mukadderat 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - she's clearly not a notable person --SandyDancer 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article as rewritten, notability is now sufficiently established. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 4 November 2006
• Keep. If she is best known for a book which ranks 78,460, she can't be all that notable. However, she does appear to fulfill the basic criterion in WP:BIO for having received two, probably more, independently published reviews from reputable non-commercial sources, so I guess it's an obligatory "keep". Ohconfucius 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Although my standard usually allow me to vote for people who have written at least 1 book, the article is kinda like a vainity article... Probably not notable yet, but she's published, so I'll have to say keep... Spawn Man 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - rewrite isn't a resumé, but it still doesn't assert notability. —Angr 09:07, 8 November 2006 (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.