Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Ivey


 * 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The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Anna Ivey
Author is not broadly notable. Not widely published. Unknown outside the small minority of law school applicants who are familiar with her work Interestingstuffadder 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Creator is active in articlespace, I'll assume good faith and trust some expansion. Give it a couple months.  T  e  k e  04:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable author of mass published work, room for expansion. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above, she's also been quoted in the Washington Post (as cited in the article), New York Times ("One Good Career Deserves Another," by Lisa Belkin, section 4A on 11/6/05, also quoted on 3/16/05) and Chicago Sun-Times (9/7/2005, p. 68). Plus she was the Dean of Admissions at a major law school.Cheapestcostavoider 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment anyone got her card for me? T  e  k e  04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: this may be a keep but is certainly not a speedy keep. As the article stands it points to only very limited publication history. Publishing one book and being quoted a could times is not nec sufficient for notability, at least not conclusively enough to justify a speedy. Let's see how the debate comes out and not rush this process. Interestingstuffadder 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. She's easily notable enough as an author, although you seem to be inventing new, ambiguous criteria that go well beyond the guidelines (Notability (people)).  If the NYT, Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times all think she's notable enough to quote as an admissions expert, and Vault thinks she's enough of an expert to have her own column on their site, I don't see why there's any need to prolong debate.Cheapestcostavoider 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: All I can base my reasoning on is what is referenced in the article -- she has put out one book, has been interviewed by a major newspaper once, she maintains a website and she used to serve as an administrator at an American law school. This infi may hint at notability (though I'd like to see more). But no, this information doe not make her such a slam dunk on notability that we should cut off the process of discussing whether she belongs on wikipedia. I just don't see anyting here that makes it clear that she meets speedy keep criteria. It is unclear to me why you are so afraid of letting this discussion run its course if you are so convinced of her notability. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I created the article. I'm not adamantly attached to it or anything, but I do think she is notable enough to merit an article.  Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies states "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" merit an article.  The article as it now stands cites such a publication ("The Anna Ivey Guide to Law School Admission") and a link to the Vault.com column to which she contributes.  Given the murkiness and contentiousness of "notability," I think it is best to err on the side of keeping an article.  Moreover, judging from interestingstuffadder's comment on the pages's history, it seems that even the nominator for this AfD has reconsidered. --Wikiwriter706 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the strong response to this AFD has prompted me to do some research (which I am not required to do -- it is up to the article to provide a basis for its notability) and I am getting to where I think it would reasonable to keep this. Also, a review of Wikiwriter706's fine contributions make me think that we can count on this article's ongoing improvement. However, I also still do not think this article reaches the criteria for speedy keep (though I imagine it will be kept when 5 days elapse). Interestingstuffadder 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're right that it seems likely to be kept so it doesn't matter too much whether or not it is speedily kept, but I do believe it currently meets the criteria for speedy keep since you, the nominator, seem to be stating you don't actually want the article deleted and there has been no other delete vote, valid or otherwise. --Wikiwriter706 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: although I am coming around, I have not yet formally withdrawn the AFD. The speedy keep guidelines indicate that in order for the article to be kept based upon my will I would need to withdraw the AFD. But I agree that you probably have nothing to worry about. Interestingstuffadder 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The speedy keep is not binding, it's just one user's opinion. Consensus amongst the keeps and deletes will provide the concensus.  As I mentioned in my weak keep, I would be hesistant on the article (in other words, I wouldn't have voted; I don't vote when I'm hesitant) had I not looked up Wikiwriter's contribution history, which I thought I linked to but appearantly I just linked to the userpage.   T  e  k e  04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep meets notability criteria. Amcfreely 04:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. Probably bad-faith nomination; nominator AfD'd article less than a week after creation and despite obvious notability and without making any effort to discuss issues on this or the creator's talk page.Sparklemotion 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't appreciate being accused of bad faith. As the article has developed I have in fact engaged in a dialogue with the author about it and have acknowledged that it has become a solid article and I would not nominate it for deletion again. When I nominated this article it simply did not make a case for notability -- now it does. I am an experienced editor and I really resent being accused of bad faith in a public forum. Interestingstuffadder 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let things like that ride, keep cool :) After all, you get the credit of being flamed on the user's first contribution! T  e  k e  04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else you would call a violation of AfD etiquette like this. An experienced editor really shouldn't be using AfD as a first resort without using a more appropriate tag or making a good-faith effort to discuss issues. Sparklemotion 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a lot seperating bad faith from poor etiquette. Look around the wiki -- plenty of articles are AFDed soon after being created, especially when created by inexperienced editors (which this page's creator was when he/she created the article). Frankly, when I first saw this it article it seemed like non-notable vanity to me. I have since been convinced otherwise. Maybe I should have waited longer before adding the AFD tag, but "bad faith" is an extremely strong accusation around these parts. Obviously I wasn't aware of the articles "obvious" notability. Bad faith implies that I AFDed this article out of some ulterior or nefarious motive -- there is absolutely no evidence of that. Thus, if you are truly interested in being part of a community that values civility perhaps you should pause before levelling such pointed accusations at other editors. Interestingstuffadder 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So can we shake hands? There are 2,000 to 3,000 articles/stubs created every day. About 500 get speedy, 300 get prod, and up to 150 on AfD.  It's all in process, Sparklemotion.  Interestingstuffadder, perhaps you might not want to argue your own nominations so seriously.  Sometimes it's best to throw it out there and get out of the way.   T  e  k e  06:34, 26 April 2006 (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.