Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Earl

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Earl[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sensitive article, which reads as though it was written by a paid editor and breaks WP social contract. Reads like a puff piece. Recommend delete and salt, if deleted. Seems to be completely non encyclopedic except the The Fault in Our Stars and the film adaption. It's a sad story, where is the notability. If kept it will need trimmed. Such an article would have never made it into Encyclopedia Britannica. scope_creep 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note/keep

I just want to make a couple of comments in regards to a concern, and that's that I am not a paid editor. I'm a student who likes to regularly edit Wikipedia. I know that the subject, Esther Earl and her story, makes the article sensitive, but I feel like her notability is far established. There are 20 references. I can understand if 5 are viewed as not acceptable (3 from YouTube, 1 from Tumblr, 1 from the official TSWGO website), but the other 15 are from credible and/or high-profile sources like ABC News and USA Today. I'm fine if the article is trimmed, I could see it being trimmed, but I felt when writing this article to include her life, as it is a biography on her. This was not supposed to be littered with information on The Fault in Ours Stars and how Esther inspired that novel. This article is supposed to be about Esther, and as seen in the non-TFIOS sections of the articles (such as Life and Esther Day) there is plenty of properly-sourced information with references to People, USA Today, and the Boston Globe. My only comment on if a trimming does happen, the non-TFIOS sections shouldn't be trimmed so much as to make this article appear to just include mentions to the novel. I can see why the 2nd sentence of the TSWGO section would be trimmed, and that section is the one that I would personally nominate for a restructuring or rewording. The other two sub-sections of the Impact and Legacy section seem fine and properly sourced. As for the Life section, I honestly can't see a problem with it. This is a biography article, and that section includes sourced information (9 non YouTube/Tumblr/TSWGO references). I always try my best to not sound like I'm advertising the subject when I create an article, but I feel the sadness of the situation should not take away from the fact of the well-established notability. Soulbust (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: From a nom that's been putting a lot of articles up for AfD, this is a staggeringly bad nomination. There are good references from the Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, ABC News, USA Today, the Washington Post, Parade magazine -- major and reliable sources, many of which describe the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Moreover ...
(1) Exactly where in deletion policy are being a "sensitive" article or breaking the "WP social contract" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) set forth as valid deletion grounds?
(2) Since the article doesn't have a history of being created, deleted and recreated, what grounds does the nom have for a salting recommendation?
(3) Since damn near everything in the article is a direct statement supported by an inline citation, what grounds is there for trimming all that much? (That being, by the bye, a content dispute that's inappropriate for AfD anyway)
(4) This wouldn't make it into the Britannica? No kidding; was the nom unaware that the Britannica has less than a hundredth as many articles as Wikipedia?
One of the stronger WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations I've ever seen at AfD, and one which warrants review of the nom's AfD history. Ravenswing 09:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the lead a bit, but there's no question of notability to be sure. Someone hasn't actually read Brittanica, or American National Biography I guess. The girl who inspired Lincoln to grow a beard, Grace Bedell, is among the many thousands of people enshrined in American history. There's more than enough room for Earl among the Sam Patchs of American history.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she wrote a best-selling book. true much of her coverage spawns from The Fault in Our Stars coverage, but this has made the subject notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage as noted above and therefore is way over the bar regarding WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2014 (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.