Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Hamilton

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. If material can be used on another article, please ask at WP:REFUND. The preponderant opinion here seems to be to delete due to notability and fringe pushing concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Hamilton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BIO generally. Note that this is probably covered under WP:FRINGEBLP, so it is important to keep in mind the way in which the subject may be pushed by fringe sources which can confuse classic notability tests. See also, the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral City (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete holy cow this article is four years old and the only refs are a bunch of spamming links. TNT. Maybe there is something here but it would have to be completely rewritten. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the Integral Thought walled garden. Note all the self-references. I could ref check this and exhaustively tag this but I'm only on two weeks' holiday - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —PermStrump(talk) 04:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has a section called "References", it is actually a list of books and papers that she has written, which are not independent and not acceptable as Wikipedia references. Essentially, this is an unreferenced BLP, which is contrary to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so that participants are informed of afd. forgot to sign, sorry. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The biggest problem with the article is that it is gibberish and needs a lot of cleanup. The second biggest problem is seeing what sources do exist. I found an interview that has a photo of her here, which may be useful in a search, as there are multiple people with this name. My question is if her publications are self-pub or independently published. Seems we have an interesting theorist here, the question isn't so much if she's fringe as if she's notable for her ideas or not. Montanabw^(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See the AFD on her book. The discussion now is bogged down in to what degree WP:FRIND applies to the reviews - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- weakly sourced WP:PROMO possibly written by someone close to the subject: note the use of "Marilyn" to refer to her, rather than more neutral "Hamilton". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Integral City or vice-versa. The two as separate articles don't sut it for me, but combining them as a BIO1E or a book-and-author set works, there are eough sources in combination to support one article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.