Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Fowler (Writer)

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The result was Keep, as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Fowler (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A mess of links and non-sourced material. Speedy removed saying this "asserts notability" (I don't see it), and later removed by anonymous user (most likely logged-out author). JuJube (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article was created 10 days ago, still no clear assertion of varifiable notability nor a properly formatted reference. SWik78 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are several reliable sources cited to establish notability and provide material for an encyclopedia article, like a whole article about her in the New York Times. Who cares if they are properly formatted? That is solved by formatting the references and improving the article, not deleting it. — brighterorange (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix it. JuJube (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you see the notability and think the article should be kept and fixed? It's rather thankless and risky to fix an article when it's on AfD with two delete opinions. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's been plenty of AfDs that have turned around because one user put it upon him or herself to make the article presentable. I would not argue against a good article being kept. JuJube (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, I spent 40 minutes cleaning this up into a proper stub. Please let this not be a waste of my time. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First of all, great job cleaning up the article Brighterorange. It looks a million times better. However, having read all of the external links, I can still only gather that she is a stripper with an education who has her own blog. The New York Times article really does nothing more than showcase a night in the life of a stripper. I still don't see notability worthy of a Wikipedia article. SWik78 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this coverage not reliable, significant, or independent? She is also the author of a book to be published by Penguin. — brighterorange (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:TABLOID: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. I would say that at least The Sun and the Village Voice could be disqualified as reliable since they are both tabloid-type publications. SWik78 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, obviously the Village Voice article doesn't count because it is written by the subject of the article. It is used only as the source for the fact that she wrote that article (and a helpful link in case the reader wants to read it). I agree that The Sun is basically a tabloid. But are you saying that the Times article is not reliable? Or the Morning Call, or Wales on Sunday? (There are more out there, too...) I think these clearly qualify the article by WP:N. — brighterorange (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that NY Times is not a reliable source. I'm saying that the particular article in the Times about the subject, in my opinion, doesn't do anything to assert her notability. Lots of people get written about in the Times that don't deserve a Wikipedia article. I think she is one of those people. SWik78 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In doing so you disagree with WP:N, which says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this correct? If you look at the bullet points there, it meets each one of them neatly. It is of course your prerogative to disagree with guidelines, but WP:N does not say that the Times article needs to "assert notability" (that phrase comes from CSD A7, not WP:N). — brighterorange (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not disagreeing with the policy but I think it's possible that you and I are not interpreting the policy in the same fashion which is fine. I think we've both said what we had to say on this topic. Let's get some input from other users. SWik78 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please explain how you are interpreting WP:N (a guideline, not policy) in a different way? Or are you referring to some other policy/guideline? I don't understand. — brighterorange (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree that the coverage of the subject is significant as the policy states. SWik78 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, let me just say that the biographical NY Times article is entirely about her and is two (web) pages long; the Morning Call and Wales on Sunday articles are also completely about her. To me this is "significant"; as WP:N says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself ... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." — brighterorange (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.

User:Nakon closed as delete, commenting on his talk page: "Per the discussion that followed the rewrite, I didn't find that the article sufficiently showed how the subject was notable." I complained that we couldn't have reached consensus because only SWik78 and I were commenting after the rewrite and disagreed. So, let's get some consensus! Do the newspaper articles and upcoming book by a major publisher establish this writer's notability? — brighterorange (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources too me, look like enough to satisfy WP:N. More info may become avaliable after she is published as well. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Brighterorange has done a fine job of fixup; article is brief, cleanly informative, verifiable, multiply sourced, intrinsically interesting, and notable per WP:N. The woman could well be another Candace Bushnell--or better--or not. And if not we will still want to have this piece of the Comédie humaine succinctly available. Palisade (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per — brighterorange and Palisade. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this is all pointless since I'm gonna withdraw the nom. It looks much better now. If someone else feels strongly enough, please wait awhile before renomming. JuJube (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2008 (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.