Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Lakin

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. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Lakin

The subject of this article has, apparently, requested its deletion ten times. Count them: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It has been reverted as vandalism every time bar one, on three occasions by Wikipedia administrators. On the one remaining time, where Proposed Deletion was used, it was contested because the editor didn't put the rationale, given several times over in immediately preceding edits, into the {{subst:prod}} template. This, again, was by a Wikipedia administrator. On this occasion the subject is quite right, and on the side of policy. There are no sources documenting this person, either cited in the article or to be found in books, scholarly articles, WWW pages, news articles, or even book catalogue listings by book sellers. How can we know that anything that the article says, from the purported death of the subject's brother, through how the subject's works have been touted and what the subject thinks of New Orleans, to where the subject lives and studies, is true? We cannot. No sources, therefore no article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This person is, simply, not publicly documented. It's time that we stopped reverting the subject's apparent wish not to be documented here, too, as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per subject's wish and Uncle G's explication, as well as his argument re: notability. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP's presumption in favor of privacy and WP:V/WP:N. Bongo matic 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete There are a number of sources including [1], but they'd support a weak keep at best and I think we should defer to the subject of a BLP unless notability is blindingly clear. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You made me wonder why my searches didn't turn that up. (I've just scanned all of the search results again, to check that I didn't simply overlook it.) I've discovered why. I used "'" for the apostrophe in "Devil's". That article uses "’". Uncle G (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally disagree that we should delete on request, or do more than let the subject make an argument like anyone else why the article is inappropriate, because that amounts to letting the subjects of the less than extremely notable BLPs censor. For the most notable, we'd have NPOV articles. For the others, we'd have positive only. This will turn Wikipedia into Who's who in the East (etc), where the subjects do exactly that. On the other hand, this is clearly a promotional article, whoever wrote it -- it was written by a series of anons in the days when anons could introduce new articles. And her books are not notable--none of them are even in worldCat. whether or not she wanted the article, this should be deleted. The interview found would not be enough in my view for even the weakest of keeps. The absence of the books from the basic sources is decisive. DGG (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that there is a grey area in which a person nominally may be notable enough for an article, but sufficiently not-notable that we can consider their request for deletion. Such individuals often are having a small facet of their lives unfairly emphasized, with little prospect of the article ever improving to provide proper balance. This, however, is not such a case - the subject simply is not notable, as reflected by the dearth of sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BLP policy on reliable sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (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.