I just got to view my talk page and all I could see was red link of the article. Reviewing further, I saw the page deleted for Unambiguous advertising. I was also quite sure there was no advertising or promotional word. I do request undeletion for further review and clarification. Thanks! Otuọcha (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If we remove "considered as the pioneer of genealogy" and get rid of the miscited quote, there's nothing promotional left at all. I thus think the article is a very long way from being "exclusively promotional", as WP:CSD#G11 requires. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and list on AfD. NYT article is prima facie evidence of notability, and her book seems to meet our notability standards. Whether these amount to notability per BLP is a question for AfD, not CSD. I don't find the tone particularly promotional, and the claims are well supported by the cited sources. Either way, promotional tone can be fixed editorially; this is not a speedy candidate. Owen×☎ 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not her notability I'm questioning but the promotional wording used without any evidence to back it up. Who says she is "the pioneer of genealogy"? Having written books doesn't automatically equal notability. Because of the history of COI editing, I'm doubtful that an article supported by a professional qualification, a primary source and a brief mention in a book on a related subject could stand alone; if the promotional wording were removed, this would be a very short stub. However, I don't object to it being restored pending a full deletion discussion, as there doesn't seem to have been one prior to the previous deletion. Incidentally, the article on Isle of Canes doesn't look great either. Deb (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G11 states, This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. The page was not exclusively promotional. Only minor changes were needed to make it a stub compliant with our MOS. The subject can be argued to be notable, and the content can easily be fixed to be NPOV. I think G11 was an innocent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. I don't think anyone would object if you speedily undeleted/unprotected the page, chalking up the deletion to a clerical error, with or without listing it on AfD. But of course, you're welcome to let the DRV run its course. Owen×☎ 19:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It is written promotionally, and removing the promotional language would leave maybe a sentence of material. I have little patience for promotional articles on BLPs, but the speedy is quite borderline and one of those instances where simply fixing the promotional material would probably be about as easy as G11-ing. SportingFlyerT·C 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. But... The quote is miscited. There is no such thing in the NYT article. Fake referencing. For BLPs we have: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Being "the pioneer" of something and, more generally, talking about a living person in superlatives is inherently contentious. The "the pioneer" claim is unsourced. There is unsourced contentious positive material and fake referencing. The article is objectively promotional regardless of intent. But it is not exclusively promotional, despite being a pretty terrible article, and it would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to function as a permissible stub.—Alalch E. 23:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G11. Repairing the article can be done by deleting the lede paragraph, which is flowery promotional language, leaving a stub of the second paragraph. My interpretation of G11 is that when most of the article including the lede paragraph is promotional filler, the intent of G11 is satisfied. Other reasonable editors may disagree with my interpretation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only other reasonable editors will disagree, but the consensus participants who penned G11 would, too. You are basically writing your own version of G11 that has little to do with the one in our policy. Owen×☎ 01:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am reading the one that is in the policy, just as you are. And my reading appears to be the same as that taken by User:Deb, so it is not just my reading. I don't know about "the consensus participants who penned G11". The consensus that matters is the consensus interpretation at DRV. There are two reasonable readings of G11 on this point, and the consensus here will choose between them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The standard for G11 is whether the entire article is "exclusively promotional", not whether the lead paragraph is flowery, not whether you would be left with more than a stub if you deleted (rather than reworded) the promotional language. This was not close to a G11. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I understand the G11 but disagree with it. That lede is pretty bad, but it's not exclusively promotional IMO. It is close. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy there are parts of the article that are written an the tone of an advertisement, but the page is not exclusively promotional and would not need to be fundamentally rewritten. The content that is promotional in nature can be cleaned up rather than the entire article be deleted. I am concerned about the article's notability, but that is a topic best left to AFD. FrankAnchor 17:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
