Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Lowachee
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 withdraw. I started this afd debate in response to this edit, but although the article didn't sufficiently explain her notability, there are plenty of reliable sources out there to establish this. That particular template probably shouldn't have been added in this case, as the other reason for deletion given by the original editor was that the article lacked sources. Cleanup or unreferenced or sources might have been more appropriate. So I am withdrawing the debate and adding more appropriate templates to the article. Egdirf (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karin Lowachee[edit]
- Karin Lowachee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A feletion notice was placed on this article due to a lack of reliable third party sources. I have no opinion on the matter personally as I'm not familiar with the subject, but feel we should have an afd debate as it may allow for greater consensus than the original method might have permitted. Egdirf (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Spectrum and Aurora awards should not be hard to source from the official websites. The authorship of the named books should not be hard to confirm at either Amazon or the publisher's website. (Also, I thought Lowachee had more than the three books out, but apparently not.) I am a little startled at the rationale. Whether she is notable based on those three not-upper-level awards, one of them from her own publisher, is another matter. I'm inclined to think so, but withhold judgement for the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: I've updated the Wikipedia article on the Aurora Awards and per the official website this author did win for Best Novel (English) as stated. AfD is for determining notability, not a way to elicit more references (of which there are plenty). - Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yet often an article which is unreferenced gets references added as a result of an AFD, and thus improves the credibility and quality of Wikipedia. Granted, a nominator should do due diligence via a Google search or equivalent, but some of us have access to subscription newspaper files or scholarly journals and can find refs the nominator could not be expected to uncover. The end result of an AFD is often to remove an article about a hoax or nonnotable subject or to identify and add references to improve an article, and both are good outcomes. An editor can create hoaxalicious "vanispamcruftisement" articles far faster than other editors can find and add refs, and the AFD process is an important part of Wikipedia quality control to help convince people to cite refs when they add an article to Wikipedia, or see it nominated for deletion. Edison (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - certainly meets notability. And no, in response to the previous comment, AfD is not for article improvement. Things should only be nominated when deletion is the logical expected result of the person nominating. Otherwise it should be tagged with clean-up tags. matt91486 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yet often an article which is unreferenced gets references added as a result of an AFD, and thus improves the credibility and quality of Wikipedia. Granted, a nominator should do due diligence via a Google search or equivalent, but some of us have access to subscription newspaper files or scholarly journals and can find refs the nominator could not be expected to uncover. The end result of an AFD is often to remove an article about a hoax or nonnotable subject or to identify and add references to improve an article, and both are good outcomes. An editor can create hoaxalicious "vanispamcruftisement" articles far faster than other editors can find and add refs, and the AFD process is an important part of Wikipedia quality control to help convince people to cite refs when they add an article to Wikipedia, or see it nominated for deletion. Edison (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a little background information is required here. The original deletion template was added by David Monniaux earlier this evening. His rationale for doing this was "Article does not point to why this author is notable, and lists no sources." If I shouldn't have opened an afd, let me know, and I'll be happy to withdraw it. Egdirf (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound like an attack on you, I was just trying to reply to the previous comment. It has nothing to do with this AfD in particular, but over the past week or so, there have been several instances of people nominating articles for AfD for reasons of improvement. I was not meaning to imply that you had done that. I was just intending to reply to Edison, who seemed to be defending instances in which people had nominated things for AfD for improvement. I have all confidence in the good faith of your nomination. I just personally believe she meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a little background information is required here. The original deletion template was added by David Monniaux earlier this evening. His rationale for doing this was "Article does not point to why this author is notable, and lists no sources." If I shouldn't have opened an afd, let me know, and I'll be happy to withdraw it. Egdirf (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (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.