Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Phillpotts


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn as the substance and sourcing have been beefed up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Adelaide Phillpotts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a person who's described as a writer, but completely fails to mention her actually writing anything that could even be measured for whether it actually passes WP:AUTHOR or not -- as written, what this article says is that Adelaide was born, her father discovered Agatha Christie, and then Adelaide died: the only person who wrote anything in this version of the story being Agatha Christie. From her father's biography, I'm able to glean that Adelaide was credited as the co-author of a couple of his works, but even then I had to go to his article to actually find that out because it's not being stated here at all -- and neither article contains much indication that she ever published any significant volume of work in her own right. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually add some actual content about her actually writing something, but as written this is basically "she lived, stuff happened to other people around her and then she died". So it's basically a WP:TNT situation -- even if she can be shown to pass AUTHOR for something, this version of the article isn't even trying to show it. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and it mentions that she is the ODNB which is seen as a touchstone of notability. This a WIP as noted in the first edit summary. Bit surprised by the enthusiasm for AFDing. There are better candidates. If I hadnt slept then there would be more in the article but I still contend that the notability is obvious. If all the text that is mentioned above was deleted then we would have a British author stub who is in the ODNB. That works for me. There are two articles about the film and the play she wrote. I suggest this is withdrawn now, as will not be successful and wastes time. I'm not posting here again unless invited Victuallers (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Writer with her own article in ODNB, therefore notable. It's unfortunate that the article was started with so much about Agatha Christie and so little about Ross/Phillpotts' own writing, but AfD should be about the topic, not the current state of the article. Clearly notable. Pam  D  08:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agree with PamD - anyone with an ONDB article passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - ODNB entry clinches it. The article needs improving and expanding to concentrate more on her achievements but nevertheless she passes GNG Neiltonks (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't know why some people insist on nominating an article for deletion within a couple of hours of its creation. A little patience would be neat. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agree with PamD - anyone with an ONDB article passes WP:GNG, which makes me question whether the nominator checked the references given, or OUP list. To prove negative (non-notability) takes time and diligence- and four hours from creation to tagging- seems a little too hasty.ClemRutter (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator most certainly did check the reference, which led me not to any verification that she was reflected in it at all, but merely to a "pay for access" login screen which verified nothing whatsoever. When we're talking about an article which so clearly failed to actually contain any content that could actually have been drawn from an ODNB entry, and links-to-paywalls are easily faked as "supporting" content that isn't actually there at all, it was not and is not my job to simply presume that such content existed in the absence of any possible way to verify that — it was the creator's job to make a better article than this in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What if the creating editor had cited the print version of ODNB? Not all sources are accessible to all editors. And the suggestion of faked links goes against AGF and looks more like a WP:PA for an article created by such an experienced Wikipedian. Pam  D  05:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A print-only citation would include other details, such as the actual publication details of the book, by which we could properly verify things about it regardless of having direct access or not — for example, with her surname beginning with the letter P, it would be not credible if the print-only citation claimed that her biography appeared on page 5 of the book. And a proper print-only citation to a biographical dictionary would also include the title of the specific entry being referenced — thus making it clear whether Adelaide actually had her own entry to support independent notability, or was just glancingly namechecked as a bit player in Eden's. Whereas a web URL that links only to a paywall splash page, and fails to actually directly verify so much as one comma of the content, is indistinguishable from the "find a random link that fails to actually support the content but makes it look properly referenced, and just pray to the god of your choice that nobody ever actually attempts to check it" class of referencing that used to routinely infect the various subpages of List of LGBT people before we imposed permanent page protection on them.
 * And any editor experienced enough to earn a presumption of good faith that they would never do such a thing is also, by definition, experienced enough to know that they have to put a lot more meat (e.g. an actual notability claim that would actually be measurable against a notability standard) into the text of the article than was even attempted here at first. In an article that looked and sounded that much like the "trying to flesh out a notable person's family genealogy by creating a separate page about every single relative of theirs whose name is locatable at all regardless of whether they actually have any standalone notability or not" class of articles that we see every once in a while, it's not my job to extend an editor more benefit of the doubt on a referencing uncertainty than the text of the article has earned.
 * That said, I see that the article has now been expanded with more substance and sourcing to support her notability properly, so I'm withdrawing this. But I'm not going to stand for suggestions that it was improper of me to express the doubts that I had with the content as it stood at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.