Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alis Rowe (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Rowe

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

Just-prior AfD was just "procedurally closed" due to disruptive SOCKing by Sdc3000/SThompson/Imalawyer. Am re-listing so that people who !voted in good faith are not too far from the work and thinking they did last time. My rationale for !voting to delete was: this is marginal. I was heading toward keep because she has published a lot of books but then I saw that they all appear to be self-published, on Amazon's CreateSpace or through her self-publishing imprint, Lonely Mind books. If you take those away, as we should, you are not left with much. I am going to have to say delete for now. This may be a WP:TOOSOON thing. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sock !vote removed by Bbb23; thank you for policing this Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. I understand why this re-nomination needed to take place, but the prior discussion seemed headed toward a "no consensus" close (especially if you ignore the 'delete' votes from the now-blocked users) and perhaps we'll end up in the same place again. Here, I'll just re-post the relevant portion of my previous recommendation.

Although this case is more "borderline" than many, I can see some notability coming from the niche publications. There's nothing suspect about that -- people who operate in specialised areas can be expected to derive their coverage from specialty publications. That's true for many of the academics who have articles here. And it is certainly true for the hundreds upon hundreds of sports figures whose articles are sourced solely to an on-line sports database (and it is difficult to imagine anything more "niche" than that). I also see some notability coming from the BBC interview. Although we tend to downplay the significance of interviews in our notability discussions, the fact remains that the BBC does not have an unlimited amount of air time and that some editorial discretion went into the decision to devote some of that time to the subject.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in a number of genre related reliable sources, this article was created at WP:AFC and I agree with that decision as there is just about enough coverage for WP:BASIC although more sources would be helpful Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "just about enough coverage" is not enough coverage, and so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references meet WP:GNG criteria. WP:TOOSOON is an essay. Hmlarson (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NewYorkActuary and others. There is adequate indicia of notability, GNG is met. Montanabw^(talk) 08:10, 16 April 2017 (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.