Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Weinberger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Weinberger

Contested prod. Original concern was "Marketing and promotional campaign." No opinion from me; this is to alleviate a de-prod/re-prod situation. Kuru talk 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Revised to Delete Keep—The source of the material doesn't invalidate the material unless it is intentionally distortional or misleading. Probably promotional . But not egregiously so; the individual is notable (not strongly, but notable). Williamborg (Bill) 01:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Reviewed comments by Drac2000 and must admit I find them compelling; especially after reviewing the article history. Ah well, perhaps it's time for a break. Williamborg (Bill) 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete— My judgment is that this Author stub for Sharon Weinberger is a marketing and promotional campaign for a new Op-Ed Blog that she introduced this month. If so it has no place in this namespace of Wikipedia. My concerns follow:

The first external link takes one to the Blog, that incidentally has a very political content.

This person has very little achievement or even visibility in the world of literature. For a baseline I searched the New York Times list of current "Best Sellers" and found the top ten as follows: New York Times (hardback best sellers, week of August 13, 2006)

1. Nora Roberts 2. Terry Goodkind 3. Daniel Silva * 4. Janet Evanovich 5. Scott Smith 6. Danielle Steel 7. Fannie Flagg 8. J. A. Jance 9. Sara Gruen 10. James Lee Burke

Only number 3 marked with the * has an Author page or stub in Wikipedia. He wrote 9 books since 1996 and that suggests some sort of baseline. Ms. Sharon Weinberger has written one book which sold fewer than 500 copies and raised very serious charges about the provenance of the events she described, as can be seen at the second external link to the critique of that one book.

The history section of this entry shows considerable contention that could indicate troubled matters.

Let's discuss and see if there are some extenuating circumstances for what otherwise will be a sharp lowering of standards caused by retaining this Author. --Drac2000 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong use of Data Please realize that basically ALL of the names you listed in your so-called NYT bestsellers list are authors of novels, i.e., FICTION. Weinberger's book doesn't belong in the same category; it's not "literature" in the fiction sense. It's non-fiction. I'm sure you know what the difference is. (Moreover, most authors know that the New York Times Bestsellers list is really just a jacked-up publicity stunt; it's definitely not a reliable meter for gauging the popularity of a book.) When attempting to cite data in the future, please get to know the list of names you blindly fling around. But, getting back to my point: other than groundless speculation, what is your judgment based on? Yosofun 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've just checked, and it appears that almost ALL of the authors on your so-called list have non-trivial non-stubby W pages. (BTW, are you illiterate? How can Terry Goodkind NOT have a W page, when Robert Jordan and J.R.R. Tolkien both do?) Yosofun 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nora Roberts and Danielle Steel both have wikipedia articles, and I would wager most of the rest do too. I have no idea what your point is. Catchpole 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Sharon Weinberger is "notable" for what? It does not say anything significant on her page. Best here is to continue to see if anyone of the supporters of this page can articulate what makes it worth having in Wikipedia. --GoodElfNo3 01:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — I just dont see any notablishness... um... yeah... notablishness here American Patriot 1776 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I would encourage everyone to review the article's history before casting their 'vote' on this article. What I see there is an edit war, which User:Drac2000 and User:GoodElfNo3 now appear to be trying to win through the nuclear option, including re-PRODing the article four times after other editors contested the deletion. If the consensus is that promotional material has crept in, then revert to the initial stub and start over. But allowing one side of an edit war to 'win' by deleting the page would set a terrible precedent. Kickaha Ota 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep — Only the barest level of notability established. Keep a close eye on marketing creep. Check out the edit warring, perhaps protect the page hand out warnings and bans where appropriate. Crossmr 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Published author. Catchpole 08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks to Catchpole for finding the entries for 2 of the top 10 under Bios and not Authors. At that time Sharon Weinberger was under Authors, but now is under Bios as well. So time to rethink. If you give it a few minutes I am trying to clean up the entry for Sharon Weinberger as a person. We can see what can be done there, but please give it a minute.

--Drac2000 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am finished for this attempt. Can we consider this form or do you want to revise or revert before we continue to try to reach a decision?
--Drac2000 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But should revert to original stub, which would prevent vadalism and self-promotion. Published author. Please check out that certain people have attempted to use the entry to wage a personal vandetta against the author, including links to their critique website. Note whole source of conlict is they didn't like the book--that's not a reason to delete. Very bad precedent for wikipedia. Ohiotam 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since no one but Ohiotam has objected to the attempt to converge a bio more nearly acceptable to the community, I am going to revert the Sharon_Weinberger page back to the form that I had offered for comment before Ohiotam trashed it. I will add the grammar Ohiotam proposed because it is an improvement. Please leave it long enough so I can get it back and then maybe wait until several people get to comment or revise besides Ohiotam.
--Drac2000 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Finished proposed bio form. Please notice that since Weinberger removed her own page www.imaginaryweapons.com there is nowhere to point a link about the book. That's why I did not make it a link. The link to Op-Ed now goes where the link Ohiotam called "Imaginary Weapons." It is the link to the Op-Ed blog within which there is some mention of the book reached by links therein. Could we get a few more diverse coments on this Bio version before Ohiotam trashes it again?
--Drac2000 17:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe Ohiotam's way will work. I have refined it since his/her last undiscussed revision. Can we have some comments on the current version from someone other than Ohiotam?
--Drac2000 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems the revisions have converged, or is that being too optimistic? Anyway, in the quiescent form at this UTC and date, I would rank it as being tolerable.
--Drac2000 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Just barely passes WP:Bio as published author with multiple independent reviews of her book. Some media coverage, including an interview on NPR [1]. Fairsing 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a reason not to Assume Good Faith on the part of Brat32 in creating the article in the first place. Unless there is evidence that it was created in violation of the Vanity Guidelines, we should assume that it is not. If there is an interested editor who will maintain a page in good faith, why should we delete it? It's been over 24 hours since the article has been edited, and it appears to have Consensus. Vir4030 07:16, 24 August 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.