Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Van de Wetering

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 speedy deleted per CSD G4. Recreation of deleted material, content was "substantially identical", reasons for deletion were not addressed. --Stormie (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Van de Wetering

Fails WP:BIO. An article on this individual was the subject of a successful AfD nomination last month. While it may be a considered for G4, I note that the criteria for speedy deletion requires that the article be a "copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." This article is not identical to that which was deleted; in fact it is much shorter. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Who's Who citation established notability. Vividfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a citation in The Canadian Who's Who does not in itself establish notabilty according to the guidelines, I do think it an important source. That said, I have one question: Does Van de Wetering have her own entry, or does the information provided come from her husband's entry (or that of someone else, for that matter)? I ask because spouses, parents and children receive mention and little more in this publication. I note that no page references are provided. Certainly a Canadian Who's Who entry devoted to Van de Wetering would be a good start in meeting the guidelines. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination neglects to mention that the previous AfD was subject of a an 22 October deletion review (closed 27 October). Victoriagirl (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A published author, and a database entry by itself is not evidence of notability. If there are no better sources (by which I mean reviews of her work), we don't have enough information for a biography. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I hate it when someone tries to do an end run around a deletion, DRV endorsement, and salting by creating a new article on the same topic, with a minor orthographic change in the title. There's nothing in this version to make me alter the opinions I expressed in the previous AfD and the DRV. Deor (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Address the issue, not the process. Vividfan (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, gaming the process isn't acceptable. And note that this looks like more of the Mark Bourrie edit war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the new sources (not the orthography) make this ineligible for speedy G4 deletion. And I am seriously unimpressed by the subject lines used in Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs)'s earlier attempts to recreate this article after the previous AfD. But as for the present article: it seems her accomplishments consist of two small-press books and participation in a law-school contest documented only by a press release. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (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.