Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geri Coleman Tucker

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geri Coleman Tucker[edit]

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

I question this article for inclusion for several reasons. 1. Article was created by subject. 2. nearly all sources point to non WP:RS, such as blogspot and wordpress. 3. Source from kenyon.edu does not print who the author was of that page, how do we know it was not self-published? 4. Just because someone worked at USA Today does not mean that someone inherits that sort of notability. Phearson (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding the nomination: 1. I'll place a autobio tag on it, but that's not a reason to delete. 2. There are lots of possible reliable sources out there, so I'm not sure why she used those. 3. Kenyon.edu is the website of Kenyon College, a liberal arts college founded by the Episcopal Church, of which I am a member. 4. An editor of a major media is often kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist) as a precedent (for which I note that I lost that argument). The subject appears to be notable. I am leaning keep. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you in your opinion, have a COI because of your relationship to that group? Phearson (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I like to err on full disclosure. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still challenge the claim of notability. The first citation is unreliable. Phearson (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Geri Coleman Tucker[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (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.