Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Ditchoff

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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Ditchoff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not clear how they pass WP:NAUTHOR has been tagged for notability for 9 years, bring here to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reviews for multiple books, which I've added. Plus an entry in Contemporary Authors, which is not a guarantee of notability but is usually a good sign. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article's subject has requested deletion here [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an interesting one, as while the author is mentioned in multiple sources over a wide time span, they have seemingly requested removal of the article (I don't think it's that simple though). I suspect this stems from the quality of the article's since recently and suspect it wouldn't have come about if some effort had been taken to develop it. From what I see on the article right now, and a search of historic newspapers, this author does not necessarily fail WP:NAUTHOR. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Requests for deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE traditionally go through Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team to be authenticated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: Indeed, and as I noted, I don't think it's quite so simple as the author just putting a tag on the page to request it. With that said, their rationale was based on the fact that the state of the article may not have been up to their desired standard, so perhaps with some development work, the stance may be different. Perhaps see where the afd goes first. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be that simple, it depends on the situation. Nothing forbids afd participants to take PJD1290 at their word. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: My point is that the editor who asserts themself as the author in question has made previous attempts to improve the article, but seemingly has not known the best way to do this or not done so in a manner that other editors agree with. This suggests, supported by the deletion tag rationale, that their request was maybe a result of exasperation and the afd process has actually meant the article got some attention and improvement. The editor's first edits were not to express delete, but to improve. I hope if they read the comments here they may feel heartened by some attempt to improve their article, though of course if they still wish to have it deleted and can prove their identity, then that is a separate matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick search and found a number of reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, New York Times Book Review, and Booklist. Notability is proved by those. As for the author's request to delete, that's outside the realm of an AfD discussion. But I agree that if the article was improved that might help change the author's mind (if, that is, the author did indeed request the article's deletion). --SouthernNights (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE it's not outside the realm of an AfD discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources/reviews over the years, notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~If the woman does not want to be on here then the article should be deleted according to the policy 05:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Frankiethesexaddict (talk)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user above has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Not striking the !vote because that's typically a sock-only privilege, but I figured others should be aware. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged as a sock also. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (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.