Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

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) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau[edit]

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau (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)

I can't find RS's so it appears to not meet the notability criteria. Utsill (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes under CREATIVE for the reviews of her work. I've added the information to the article and cleaned it up. I hope Utsill will take another look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks better now, but could you be more specific in which reviews you think qualify her as WP:CREATIVE and which criteria she falls under? I see she has been mentioned in NPR and HuffPo, but those are commentaries, not RS's, i.e. news coverage. See WP:NEWSORG.The Boston Globe ref seems to just be a passing mention for an event blurb. Utsill (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope of her published works and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? My current impression is that it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see WP:NOTABILITY. Utsill (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for someone to justify this view. Where is the significant coverage in RS's? Utsill (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
article has a number of book reviews by notable publications, footnote no. 7 of Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that "A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.", the reviews are not 200 pagers but neither are they 1 liners. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 27 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colleen_Patrick-Goudreau&oldid=1137724989"