Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Leveen

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. Tone 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Leveen[edit]

[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)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article was created by an WP:SPA account and was full of primary sources and promotional content. After cleaning up the article and doing a WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find sufficient indications that this person is notable. Normal Op (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't done a super thorough search yet, but I did find [1] in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Most of the other hits seem to be pieces she's contributed to The Atlantic and Los Angeles Review of Books. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage here isn't super heavy as it would be for other authors, but I found enough to establish notability via reviews and coverage for her books. There's a lot of primary sources out there so it made it hard to find the non-primary stuff, but there's just enough out there to where I would say she'd pass. (I did add some interviews to the article, mostly so that if/when I create articles for the books or if someone wants to flesh out the article, they have some sourcing available.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fair warning to the nominator and all - it looks like Leveen was the focus of some minor controversy due to her protesting a screening of Kindergarten Cop. I didn't mention any of that in the article because as of right now it's something that would be just WP:RECENTISM until it can be shown that it would be of any lasting importance. Since it resulted in a flurry of news posts that quickly died down, I'd wager that it's not really something that would warrant mention. My reason for mentioning it is controversy of any level tends to bring in SPAs and trolls, so fair warning. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was alerted to that on the Talk page. I also made a post on the Talk page describing my recent work on the article. Normal Op (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple notable (i.e. widely reviewed) books, so she passes WP:AUTHOR#3. pburka (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets both GNG and AUTHOR and just a reminder to the Nom that it is often considered bad form to heavily edit an article just before nominating it (just over an hour between your pruning and nomination). I got called out for it once when I first got into AFD. The version that you pruned had 40+ sources and the version you left had only 5. If you consider the article should be deleted and can't be saved just nominate it as is and give your analysis of the sources. You removed 80% of the content before nominating, I don't know if this is considered WP:GAMING the system or if there is a specific policy or guideline that forbids this but it seems rather unfair to those coming to !vote because they have to look back through the history to find the original sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I didn't come to the conclusion of "non-notable" until I had finished worked on the article and realized nothing was left. I had not decided that beforehand or would have saved myself the work and gone straight for AfD, but I had to weed through the chaff first. If I had an opinion about the article beforehand and then trimmed the article, you could (correctly) accuse me of gaming. Normal Op (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the sourcing wasn't entirely easy to find. There's a huge amount of primary and SPS sourcing, enough that it took me a good while to find everything that I did. I can see where it would be easy to miss it upon an initial search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal Op, I think removing 80% of the content and nearly 90% of the sources is a little more than simple weeding and I stand by my comment that it is often seen as bad form to do that before nominating. Probably best to have reverted to the original version once you had decided that the person wasn't notable and given your arguments as to why the sources do not show notability rather than removing them and saying that they should be discounted as being primary source. I was in the same case as you so of course I AGF for what you did but I was told that my actions could be seen as gaming the AFD procedure. It takes quite a deal of effort to give a detailed analysis of 40 sources in an AFD nomination but IMHO it's better than just deleting them and giving a blanket dismissal as primary sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I understand your viewpoint, however it has been my experience that too many "drive-by AfD commenters" just glance at an article, see a bunch of citations in the References section and vote 'Keep' which leads to incorrect 'Keep' decisions. Anyone who is more thorough than a 'drive-by voter' is welcome, and able, to see the version before I did the work. I stand by my edits as appropriate, and I spent over two hours working on this article before I came to my conclusion. That is such a bizarre suggestion that I should undo my own work. I see that others who perhaps know of Leveen's work are working on the article. Don't worry, I'm not going to be butthurt if my decision was wrong and the article is 'kept', and especially not upset if the article gets improved in the process. Happy editing. Normal Op (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of assuming that people who disagree with you are "drive-by voters" and that articles you nominate are "incorrectly kept," you should consider that these editors might be acting in good faith and legitimately disagree with your interpretation of our guidelines. Editing the article to encourage the "correct" outcome is inappropriate. pburka (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Sure, ignore the part where I had no opinion about the article before I started working on it and didn't even think about AfD until after I'd worked on it for two hours (as evidenced by the edit history). No, it's far more likely that I must have conspired to AfD an article because I obviously hate all dilettante wiki editors and need repeated aggressive schooling on wiki policy. Facepalm. Normal Op (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that when you nominated it you were convinced that it wasn't a notable subject and nominated in good faith but by removing the sources to stop the "drive-by voters" from thinking they are RS is not ideal. What is better is a detailed nomination where you analyse the sources so that you can then ask "drive by voters" to say why they disagree with you. When you removed them you must have had an opinion so you only have to put that opinion in the nomination. You should assume good faith and that the !voters actually have looked at the sources and that their opinion is expressed following this hence the usefulness of your own detailed analysis. Also better to avoid facepalms in an AFD. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is obviously more work to be done to improve this article. But it is do-able! TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the WP:GNG. Needs obvious work but it has passed the basic threshold. Archrogue (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2020 (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.