Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryscott O'Connor

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maryscott O'Connor

Brazen self-promotion by User:MaryscottOConnor - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete. She is also the author of the My Left Wing Wiki page. - Corporal Tunnel 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Notice: My Left Wing speedily deleted as nn web page by User:Freakofnurture. --Aaron 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Under what CSD? I thought things were harder to speedy-delete than people, generally speaking. But see my new suggestion below. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It was CSD A7. It got expanded recently; here's the new wording of the updated db-web template. --Aaron 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy Speedy delete. I suppose if she wants to keep it as her user page, no harm there. The autobiographical angle isn't my main concern: it's that she doesn't meet the criteria at WP:BIO. (By contrast, the blog does meet WP:WEB criteria.) Author of non-notable blog implies no notability. Blog was strongest assertion, so speedy candidate now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC); revised 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:COI violation and per Cfred. --Aaron 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Changing vote, see below.
• Keep. Sufficient media coverage to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Cfred. --Aaron 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Any assertion of importance negates speedy deletion. CSD A7, doesn't apply in the sense since it stresses her importance, it's easier to use deletion process instead of circular logic. Yanksox 22:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• True, but by precedent, the blog's article was deleted, and I saw more importance asserted there than in the O'Connor article, so by that logic, insufficient importance is asserted. Prior to MLW's speedy deletion, the assertion of importance here was that she created a notable blog. If the blog is non-notable, then what's the assertion of importance here? I still think speedy delete is merited, but I am not opposed to letting the AfD run its course. Besides, if I changed my opinion one more time, I'd be obliged to run for Congress and start getting written about in blogs. :) —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"there's nothing wrong with having a partially open mind"

• Cute, but you really should know better than that. Speedy deletion is not a domino effect, based upon "notability," it's based upon a lack of stressed importance. The article attempts to stress/assert importance. Also, there's nothing wrong with having a partially open mind, staying the course no matter what is why George Bush appointed Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court candidate. Yanksox 11:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Which is my point: there is no stressed importance, or else the deletion of MLW should be reconsidered as an invalid speedy due to assertion of importance, because there was a stronger assertion of importance in MLW's article than in O'Connor's. (Do I think the deletion should be reconsidered? No, based on the discussion here and WP:SNOW.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy if subject prefers, or in the alternative delete (but not speedily, she merits a full AfD) as autobiographical and failing to satisfy WP:BIO. The article's sources consist of a Washington Post article in which she was mentioned as an example of a trend, as opposed to being the subject in her own right, and links to her own blog. --Metropolitan90 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I think, per Metropolitan90. I noted the Alexa and Technorati rankings for My Left Wing on that article's talk page were unimpressive, although MLW does rate #81 on the TTLB blogging ecosystem ranking of political blogs, so maybe it's up-and-coming. Maryscott O'Connor does rate a brief mention (cited to the article) on Daily Kos, which I think is appropriate at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep When you're the primary subject of a front-page Washington Post feature article, you are almost by definition notable. I'd say that they are _quite_ a bit more selective than we. Derex 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Not a speedy candidate though. Also it is a self-promotional bio. --Tbeatty 05:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gamaliel and Derex. JamesMLane t c 09:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but IMPROVE, darnit! There's enough notability to warrant a brief and tasteful article about this person when written with NPOV. Pity she created the article herself. Pity that the article doesn't actually tell us anything that the media coverage said about her. I still think that a number of people would look for information on this person and want to learn briefly who she is, what she has done and her background. When I look at articles on AfD I ask "What is this article supposed to do, as created?" If it serves or is capable of serving to inform (not advertise) in the way I always relied on Wikipedia for knowledge before joining as an editor, then I am inclined to keep. OfficeGirl 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She meets WP:BIO and her blog meets WP:WEB. However, the should be handled in the same article. I would suggest making My left wing a redirect to her.JoshuaZ 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. If meets WP:BIO someone could write the article, but I don't think the editor should be the same person. --MaNeMeBasat 14:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Washington Post article about her shows notability. I hope people here aren't voting delete for political reasons. --Oakshade 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you know that a much higher percentage of deletionists are Republican/Tory as compared with the enwiki population at large? ^{[citation needed]} Food for thought! - crz crztalk 06:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Cute. At least one of the users who voted delete has identified themselves as a Republican on their user page. --Oakshade 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' and redirect My left wing, per JoshuaZ's suggestion. Self-promotion, maybe, but seems notable enough, as Derex points out. riana_dzasta 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet any criteria of WP:BIO, so far as I can see. 1) Multiple independent published works from reliable sources about her? We've got one, which is not multiple. 2) Enduring historic record? Not yet. 3) Elected official - nope. 4) Local elected official with significant press coverage - nope, and none visible. 5) Widely recognized entertainment figures and opinion makers (Hollywood walk of fame level) - no evidence presented. 6) Sportspeople - nope. 7) Actor/TV personality - nope. 8) Published author with multiple independent reviews of their work - no published reviews seen 9) Professionals whose work is likely to enter the enduring record - nope, not a professional, and no evidence yet that her blog entries will still be known in 10 years, let alone a generation. 10) Renown or notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events - 1 article in the press does not constitute renown; that is when the press just uses the name and everyone is expected to know who it is. As all WP:BIO criteria are failed, the article should be deleted. GRBerry 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You left some important chunks of WP:BIO out. Here are a couple:

This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious).

This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

And besides, alot of people highly value her appearances on Fox News Channel and Fox Radio in addition to the Washington Post story on her and consider those notability confirmations. --Oakshade 04:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not american but she looks pretty notable to me ... --SandyDancer 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo Mukadderat 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SandyDancer and Oakshade. A feature-article in the WaPo plus multiple television appearances suggests she's a good deal more notable than most. By all means, add to it to make it less promo-ish, but don't delete. --Arvedui 01:29, 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.