Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Batts

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. No convincing reason why WP:BIO1E shouldn't apply here. lifebaka++ 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley_Batts[edit]

Not a notable blogger; practically nothing on google outside blogs/academic websites; no wikilinks to this page

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She seems to be noted mainly because of one single incident, which itself does not really merit an independent article either (although it might merit mention in article on copyright and Internet, for example). --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no vote I should declare that although I nominated this, I could be said to have some tangential conflict of interest as a Wiley employee (although the incident actually had nothing to do with Wiley - the incident is described more accurately here). I nominated the article solely for notability, and because it had previously been put up for WP:PROD. But to keep things neutral, I won't participate in the debate. Thanks for your understanding, guys - stick a note on my talk page if you want to comment on this. Hopsyturvy (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think she is notable for the controversy surrounding her. I realize that the blogosphere is often not taken seriously by some people, but she appears to be notable in her field of blogging. However, perhaps this would be best suited if it were added to a section about controversy on a blog related article? I was watching Democracynow and they discussed how traditional media is trying to place a stranglehold on bloggers, so this might be good content for an article involving those issues. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep or change title. Notable blogger. Science blogs is a standard of ntoability for the ones included there. The author/editor of one is not necessarily notable, but can be if she is engaged in significant controversies. I would however like an additional source. One Event, if the event is one that is within the professional notability of the person, is not a reason for deletion--ins one event in the sense of something peripheral to any real notability. That said, I would be very open to changing this to an article about the blog. DGG (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move and redirect to Of Two Minds and convert to an entry about the blog. Ford MF (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO1E. She receives coverage for precisely one event. Not at all clear to me that her blog comes close to being notable. RayAYang (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan ǀ 39 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one isolated case. If it kept being refered to by third parties then it could be worth keeping. As it is it isn't. Alberon (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the blog is itself notable, it may warrant an article. However, we delete references from blogs, and people known only for writing blogs. What's more, this article seems to be no longer sourced, although the source appears to have been an expired or deleted blog, so fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyright issues have come to the fore in the last several years and there is now almost a constant deluge of dispute and debate. For example, I just stumbled upon this article yesterday in APS News (see last page). The subject of this article appears to assert "notability" primarily in light of a particular copyright flap. However, this minor episode is decidedly non-notable within the enormously larger stage of copyright law. Neither is the blog notable, nor is being a PhD student. Though I applaud this individual's efforts, there isn't enough here to qualify. Agricola44 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (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.