Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning

Add links
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 delete. Arguments that the blog is notable are not convincing (and not supported by sources). While WP does indeed need better and more coverage of women and minorities, that coverage still needs to comply with our notability requirements. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning[edit]

Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising The Banner talk 05:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak delete unless someone can clean it up (since I won't be that person, I don't have the right to say keep) (WP:TNT). Fails WP:NPOV, sources primarily from a Wordpress (fails WP:RS) apparently written by person who is the subject of the article, and its large block of text suggests a copyvio, though that might not be the case. She may be notable, but a google news search reveals only a few, mostly blog-based articles about her. — kikichugirl ? 05:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy – I think this fails under WP:NOTESSAY and probably WP:AUTOBIO. The RS cites are about the topics, and not the subject. The editor is obviously knowledgeable about the topics, so I think she should be encouraged to create and/or contribute to articles on those topics instead of using this article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – After reading this, from Kikichugirl's list, it's now clear that the author is a college student who thinks Wikipedia should have better coverage of minority and women figures. I'd just like to say that I agree with that 100%. If the article gets taken down, as we are discussing here, she wants to revise it. So I think that's another argument for userfy. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to change my !vote given substantial improvements to the article. I am also a college student who thinks Wikipedia should have better coverage of women and minority figures, but per WP:TNT a lot of major changes need to made. AfD is not cleanup, but if I'm not going to be the one cleaning it up, I don't feel I have the right to !vote keep. However, I have changed my !vote to Weak delete — kikichugirl speak up! 04:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The blog doesn't seem to be notable, nor the person, so there is little point in userfying it. The non-primary sources are referring to issues that are touched upon by the blog, not about the creator or the blog itself. Useless for Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She co-founded a think-tank at the University of British Columbia and she is editor in chief of The Indigenous Studies Undergraduate Journal. I know I need citations for these. Working on that. If I could get some help - this is being widely posted to FB and forums, I think help will come. - I think we could fix this page and we could do some great PR for the gendergap and also the nativegap - by helping new people fix articles rather than just blindly deleting them. --CDA 19:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussions have nothing to do with the gendergap but rather with policy. It wouldn't matter who created the thing. That said, if you can prove the blogger to be notable then converting the article into a bio would be fine. It would need retitling and about 98% of the existing content would have to go, so basically you would be writing a new article. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and if this discussion is being plastered across umpteen forums, FB etc then perhaps we need that template at the top of this page - the one that says something about "if you have come here because you have seen this mentioned off-wiki then please note that AfD is not a vote" etc. I've not seen it for a while & can't remember what it is called. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chelsea_Vowel is probably related, as a result of the same project. I !voted delete there. The basic problem is that we need a better "Before writing your first BLP" guide for new editors. This is the type of article that everyone wants to write and one of the hardest to do well, regardless of gender. That would help. Also maybe we could make some policy adjustments. We could promote the Native Writers' Circle awards to the status of major award. Just declare that any writer on that page deserves an article automatically. On the merits I think this would be an easy argument. Those are very good books. About this article, per Sitush, I think a BLP is what it is. We have to go on the BLP and/or writer criteria. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is really about the blog and not a biography of the author. It was written as a class project at Mount Royal University where the instructor failed to teach proper Wikipedia form. The article merely summarizes the content of the blog entries, and the blog does not meet the notability guidelines. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, feels promotional, almost all the sources are to her blog, the rest are generic books about the wider topic. Also, it's an essay, and overall, has too many long quotations with little commentary, pretty much running afoul of the NFCC. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed most of the article, as it fell afoul of NFCC. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've done a bit of clean-up & added refs, also rabble.ca started in 2001 and they are quite choosy about who writes for them. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added this as a source and it is pretty useless: a blog of the seemingly very minor undergraduate association which just quotes her own cv. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article states She is Editor in Chief of The Indigenous Studies Undergraduate Journal There was a "citation needed" template at that point. The link I added is to a re-posting of Nock's blog, the re-posting was by Matt Ward. Ward has added Nock's bio to the bottom, which includes the statement "She assisted in starting up the Indigenous Studies Undergraduate Journal as Editor". Your comment is based on the assumption that (1) Nock made her cv available to Ward, and (2) Ward did nothing towards checking it out for himself. You cannot possibly know either. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, WP:Pretty useless produces a red-link and not any WP policy. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The likelihood that Nock made the cv available is high: it is common for authors to provide a potted bio. The journal seems to have no particular merit - it appears to be a campus publication for undergraduates, not a full-blown academic publication. Your source is itself a Wordpress blog that, as you say, is basically reblogging. We need multiple independent reliable sources that discuss her or her blog in depth, not things like this. Maybe revisit WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:GNG? - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: "Ward's" blog is actually the blog of the FNSSA, ie: the same organisation that publishes the journal and which is a "student-run organization for any student on campus" with around 30 members. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The likelihood that Nock made the cv available is high – that's a matter of opinion not fact. Nook's main claim of notability is her blog for rabble.ca, which is demonstrable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:42, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samantha_Nock_-_A_Halfbreed%27s_Reasoning&oldid=1142231952"