Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kicinski[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carol Kicinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having been deleted at AFD1 this was brought to DRV as new sources had been found. Additionally it was noted that the delete votes were before the article had been improved.

For the sake of simplicty, the DRV is here and the new sources are below.

As the DRV closer I am neutral. Please note that I am a Coeliac but I closed this as it was hanging around the outcome was incontrovertible. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the additional references confirm that this subject is notable and has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help with this, I think I'm now becoming more familiar with the process and how it all works on Wikipedia. I added the sources that are listed above and I changed a couple details here and there. I was wondering if some of you would be willing to look at the page and let me know if there are specific areas that need to be edited. The original text I had was very promotional sounding, I realize that now when comparing it to the current page. I don't feel that the language is too promotional sounding any more, but you guys have been doing this a lot longer than I have so I'd greatly appreciate your opinions on what else needs editing. And since I added the sources that were discussed in the DRV, can I assume that area of the article is up to standard? Please let me know your input, meanwhile I'll read the article again and do more research to see if there are any other details I can add/change. Thanks! --M.Renae (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (original nominator). Far too close to being hard-working promotional material, rather than truly independent notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Those sources are clearly sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: POV aside, WP:GNG established by multiple sources. I sure wish Nook and Amazon weren't in the article as sources, though. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove Amazon and Nook as sources if you guys recommend that. I was using it only to show proof of the eBooks. There aren't book reviews, etc. that I can show elsewhere except the reviews on Nook and Amazon, otherwise I would have used different sources for that. Let me know what you all think. Also, Andy mentioned it still sounds promotional, can I get some specifics, is it an overall tone or certain sections of the article? Does anyone else have comments/suggestions about this? Thanks again all of you for helping me with this. --M.Renae (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Aside from passing GNG, POV complains still stand. More participants, policy-based arguments as well as improving NPOV of the article are appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alex discussion ★ 02:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been relisted to? And can anyone give me some ideas of which parts are too promotional sounding or not in NPOV? Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been re-listed here. In other words, it was not closed, but discussion is allowed to continue for another week. I must admit I'm not clear about Aleksa's rationale. The consensus appears to be it passes GNG, and POV is not a valid reason in and of itself for article deletion, unless the article is so purely promotional one would need to start completely over to attain any semblance of balance. I don't think this article is anywhere close to that. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I honestly haven't received too much feedback from people on what needs to be changed in regards to any promotional slant on the article. I am more than willing to change things if people suggest it, it's just that I have looked at the article quite a few times and can't seem to find any areas that I personally think are too promotional. I would need outside sources to sort of guide me on that, to give me a different perspective. Should I wait for more people to comment before trying to edit it any further? Thanks again, --M.Renae (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment would be the article spends too much time on non-notable activities, as an example how about the sentence "She has also spoke at libraries in her community, such as Dunedin Public Library and Clearwater Public Library". This sentence isn't sourced, and the activity isn't notable, it just gives the impression "look what a great person our beloved article subject is!" without outright saying so. Have there been any critical reviews of her work? Not necessarily critical in the negative sense, but something objective regarding her ideas and processes. It would help balance the article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. I removed that sentence and I'm going to go back through and look for any other sentences that are similar in mentioning non-notable activities. I'm not aware of any reviews like that except the book reviews which are already included as sources for the article. I've been through a few google searches, but I'll continue to keep an eye out for stuff like that. --M.Renae (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more changes to the article, I deleted Amazon and Nook as references, reworded some things for simplicity, etc. If anyone has any feedback or updates to give me on this please let me know. Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw this article at DRV when it was being improved and more now seems to have been done. It looks to me that WP:GNG has been met. It still has a promotional tone to it but that is not a sufficient reason for deletion because there is also entirely suitable content. Thincat (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears WP:GNG now. Needs some work, but nothing requiring it be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Kicinski_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142178350"