Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore (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 delete. — Jake Wartenberg 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Moore[edit]

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

Article is on a non-notable political activist which has extensive editing by a party with a conflict of interest and has significant WP:YOURSELF issues. Most of the refs violate WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view when taken in total and the other refs are primarily to things unrelated to the subject (organizations, events, etc). Merely promoting already famous ideas or being associated with notable organizations does not create notability in the general or specific forms. For these reasons I believe this article should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References should be about the subject, not written by the subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could go either way on this one. On one hand, the article as it currently stands appears borderline-lean-towards-delete, but I think it also might have potential for improvement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One does not generate notability by writing about him/herself. This article needs to identify the subject in independant sources. Them From Space 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and DC Anti-War Network page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep ~~Yes, she is a naughty WP editor for writing an article about herself.~~ However there are enough secondary sources that discuss her, inculding at least one review of her book, to make her notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring up "other stuff" but fellow activist Robert Parry has exactly one secondary source with his own website providing 90% or so of the information in his article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. There are 3, an article in depth, a list with him as one item, and a TV interview with him. But still much less than Ms Moore. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI from Carol Moore:I did not create the article about myself as was asuumed on my user talk page and seems to be assumed here also. It was created by an anonymous IP here who wrote a rather silly article. I put up with it for a year or so, then rewrote a very POV/WP:OR peice as a newbie that was quickly reverted. As I slowly learned the ropes I deleted the junk, added the most important factoid of notability and a bunch of refs. But then I got more complaints and read COI carefully and swore off editing the article since December 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. "When you assume you make an ass of you and me." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Solidly non-notable. Very, very little in the way of RS's. IronDuke 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promoting famous ideas of others or being associated with notable organizations does not create notability in general and RS's lacking. skip sievert (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that people are voting on the quality of the article, not the notability of its subject. I agree that it is a badly written article (and probably does Ms Moore more harm than good), however among the sources there are a few that point to her possible notability, for instance reviews of her books and news interviews.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep: I did a google news archive search for "Carol Moore" and waco[1], and got a number of press mentions (including Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, Tortonto Star) from the mid 90s, unfortunately these mostly are pay-access articles. (some are not - [2] ) I then did a search for "Carol Moore" and antiwar, and got some more mentions. passing mention in Baltimore Sun (2009), decent chunk of NYSun article (2005). Article needs reworking, but not deletion.--Milowent (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article was created long before Carol Moore ever edited it herself dispells the notion (and arguments made) that this is about self-promotion. There is a significant amount of coverage on her as pointed out by Milowent and along with the sources cited there, WP:N is met. Tiamut^talk 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and suggest a long hard read of our inclusion, reliable sources and verifiability guidelines. Third-party sources independent of the subject means third party sources independent of the subject. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the problem is in how we define "independent of the subject" in this case. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could yoy give me an example of a source cited there that you see as being one (if any), and another that you see as not being one? Tiamut^talk 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I never considered the "significant coverage in reliable sources" part of policy to mean "significant amount". The coverage is not significant. From what can be seen, she's mentioned in passing, as Milowent pointed out. She doesn't appear to have been the subject of any significant coverage. Promotional or not, the article doesn't satisfy inclusion criteria at this time. Lara 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that without examining the content of what's in the articles that came up Milowent's search that the coverage of her we can read so far is of borderline significance. (Though this one has a few paragraphs devoted to her thoughts and activities.) I should have been more equivocal in my keep vote above, and mention that I'm assuming that some of those cites are to articles that focus on her a bit more, as there is one article (at least) that is cited in the article now (from 1984) that seems to fit that the definition of significant coverage. I should confess that I'm something of an inclusionist though. Tiamut^talk 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you say that like its a dirty word. Inclusionist. OH THE HORROR! --Milowent (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long week hanging out with some hard-core (and selective) exclusionists. Thanks for laughter and remembrance. Tiamut^talk 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many, many violations in this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are they? Are they things that can't be fixed? The sources by Milowent plus a few in the article seem to indicate that a decent article could be built. If people could be more specific about what these violations are or how they are defining third-part independent sources, it would help others to understand if they've misunderstood. Tiamut^talk 03:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they can be fixed. They range from lack of NPOV, to lack of Notability, to CoI, etc. The page right now has many, many soap violations which would require a complete cleansing of the sources as they seem more about selling a product than actually dealing with references. The article would be best if it was just completely destroyed and, if there is ever any serious coverage of her life by notable sources, then is rebuilt. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does seem riddled with COI issues (the ref list smacks of a mission), but beyond that, this simply doesn't meet our standard at WP:BIO; unnotable local activist with no claim to significance. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (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.