Talk:Karen Franklin

Refloated
Please note there are many new sources to this revamped version (deleted over a year ago) that I think she well meets the WP:GNG in terms of sources, publishing history, awards, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what RS's change subject to notable?
As a reminder, the decision to delete this article was UNANIMOUS, except for the single editor who is trying to re-instate the article in violation of that clear consensus.

That said, new RS's come out in the world, and notability changes. But what exactly has changed with this one? As was already said in the deletion discussion, media mentions are all well and good, but do not meet WP:PROF. Changes/improvements to the quality of the article are also fine, but AfD's are not (were not) based on article quality. Despite the claims of the single hold-out of an editor, no new RS has been added that would answer the problems already discussed at the AfD.

Please list exactly what new RS's now meet PROF, or (if going for GNG) what exactly has changed that did not meet GNG before but does now?

In the absence of that, this re-float seems merely like a violation of the (again) otherwise unanimous consensus. Barcaboy2 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a much improved article, with excellent references; the old article which had been AfD-ed lacked the good sources. If you feel this article is unworthy, feel free to AfD it, but a quick glance at the references and content will show that this subject easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... there have been significant improvements with new references and the former subject should never have been deleted in the first place. The previous supposed "unanimous" voting for deletion was mostly based on reviewers looking at the previous ill-referenced version. I believe that what is really going on here is one academic deleting the articles of academics with opposing viewpoints, not deleting based on the merits of the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotes within references
They are a courtesy to facilitate the verification of references. Truncated quotes are helpful for readers wanting to learn more without having to fish out the exact text from the source; at the same time, we truncate the quotes to avoid copyright issues. A guideline is ...Long quotations may also be hidden in the reference or as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability... and also ...A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference...... Further, if the link to the reference becomes a dead link (which happens over time) the quote within the reference might give more assurance that the reference had been genuine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)