Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Troutman

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. Pretty clear consensus to keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Troutman

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

WP:COI. The original author, User:Burkeguy, has demonstrated WP:SPA with only contributing to this article. While the article itself was written with the help of an advanced user, User:Chzz, it is still written in a style that seems advertising the subject's accomplishments and self-published books. The 1st reference section of the article is made up of mostly Washington Post articles written by the subject and colleagues. At the top of the biographical page at http://www.resume-place.com/kathryn-k-troutman/kathryns-bio/ is a link to this page, seemingly written by a outsider, but in reality, by someone associated with the subject who outed themselves as such on the Talk page. I feel that it is a violation of WP:Resume. And in conclusion, I feel this is a WP:BAI (reason 1). AeonicOmega(Watcha say?) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eh, i'm not seeing it as a resume. :/ Even if it is as you say, WP:COI is not a reason to put an article up for deletion. It's something that should be tagged and fixed. The sources themselves are valid, since they come from valid publications, regardless of their relation to the subject. The Washington Post is a valid source. Silver seren^C 06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from me, not suprisingly; absolutely, I declare my involvement. The editor was paid to create the article; I worked with them frequently from early August through to the version 17 Oct when I personally felt that it was acceptable for mainspace. This was after the large amount of careful POV-checking, reference-checks, etc which you can see on Talk:Kathryn_Troutman, User_talk:Burkeguy and my archives 1 2 3 4. Please do review those discussions when considering this. I went to enormous efforts to help them overcome the difficulties with conflict of interest editing, and I believe that I addressed the concerns with considerable care.

I feel that this AfD is unwarranted; notability is clearly established. WP:BA and WP:RESUME are essays; the applicable policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV. The user cooperated in accordance with the WP:COI guideline and I referred to the essay Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest for guidance. I offered many, many hours of assistance, in an utterly neutral and altruistic manner.

I am fully aware of the problems in conflicts of interest, and particularly with respect to biographies of living people; yes, it is difficult and challenging, but is it really this impossible for a COI editor to contribute to the project?

I ask the nominator to please reconsider the heading in WP:AFD;

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including [...] articles needing improvement, [...] be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately"^AfDNotice

To end on a lighter note, I am extremely flattered by your description of me as 'an advanced user'; thank you. Best, Chzz ► 07:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

._. *points at you and gasps* I've seen you before! ...so yeah. I think this is the first time i've seen someone be so politely up front about a COI problem. I think you've done a good job in trying to keep the article neutral. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I admire you for your upfrontness and work in making articles following Wikipedia policy, even with a conflict of interest. Silver seren^C 07:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of Chzz's explanation above, which explains the reason for why certain parts of the article are as they are, I felt compelled to put up an actual vote. I took a look through the references again and I really don't see any problem with them. They are significant coverage and show that the subject is notable. That's all I really have to say. Silver seren^C 07:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems note-worthy to me. Refs including Parade, University of Baltimore, Washington Post, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services Center, Inc., and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy, and even as an essay doesn't dismiss SPAs without due reason. Here we have a person with a WP:COI. Instead of making socks, stacking votes, spamming articlespace with articles, et cetera, they went to great lengths to learn about and follow guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I should also point out that the COI guidelines do not expressly forbid such editing, only "strongly discourage" such edits, which is reasonable, since it's hard to follow WP:NPOV when you are closely tied to something. However, since there was a great deal of help from another editor without a COI, there has been some great improvements. Look at this article when it was first made as a userdraft, and then look at it now. While it may not be perfect, I find no defects in it myself to warrant deletion. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough notability shown - several books published, and significant coverage by reliable sources. (And I concur with Silver seren, and thank Chzz for the efforts made and for being open about it) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (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.