Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Resnick


 * 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   merge to Mike Resnick. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash [talk] 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Carol Resnick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual on their own right. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No reliable sources to support any claims, and even article claims they are "an uncredited editor" - which makes them uncredited and non-notable. Article was an undeleted WP:PROD and appears to have been heavily edited by the subject themself, with much WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was the one to PROD the article, after coming across it while going through the notability tag backlogs (this one from December 2007). I did so for the same reasons BWilkins states above, mainly WP:NOTINHERITED and lack of reliable sources. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge and redirect - non-notable spouse and covert collaborator of notable writer; fails the need for independent coverage of her as her own person, per WP:NOTINHERITED. No particular evidence of serious COI or NPOV failure; edit history shows involvement by one of our best SF editors, Dravecky. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud, PLEASE give me at least two weeks which are NOT a major holiday in which to work on improving the article. It has been less than a day since the article was undeleted. Some of us have a life.  In my case, I have a 2 yo toddler who was vomiting all over me last night (and I personally have a cold).  And Christmas is in 5 days.  The fact that old references are no longer available at the given links and therefore current editors cannot read them does not negate the fact that at one point they existed. Subject won a major costuming award in the sf community for four years running at the international level.  She is an author and an editor. Yes, her husband is a *more* famous author (who has noted publicly that his wife line-edited all of his work -that makes her a credited editor - by the author, just not in the text of the works).  The phrase " covert collaborator of notable writer" implies something distasteful or unethical in their collaboration, or that you don't believe it was actually of any value.  Is that what you mean to imply?Netmouse (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then ask for it to be moved out of articlespace into a draft where you can try to salvage over a period of a few weeks. And NO, because her husband said so does not make it so.  If the book and publisher doesn't credit that way, it cannot be used.  After all, my wife has therefore "edited" many of my larger works too - can she have an article? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * She is credited as an author on the screenplays listed, both of which have been sold to major movie production houses, and she is credited as co-editor of the book series that is listed - you can see the covers on amazon.com. Her name is on all of them. Netmouse (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mike Resnick and leave behind a redirect. The article in its current state presents plausible claims of some notability but not quite enough for an independent article. With better references from reliable third-party sources, I could be easily persuaded in the direction of "keep". - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This suggestion would at least preserve the editing history, as deleting would not. I would prefer it to straight deletion; I think it's a good suggestion. I won't have an opportunity to see about new references to replace whatever convinced me to create the article in the first place until after Christmas. Netmouse (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect. Didn't look at the contents, but longstanding precedent supports having the name of a nonnotable spouse of a notable person as a redirect to the notable person's article.  Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with redirect, at least at the moment (to Mike Resnick, and from Carol Resnick), per Dravecky and Nyttend; as her work becomes more known as such, she may well become notable on her own. htom (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. Sometimes a person can establish notability outside of their famous spouses, as is the case with Tabitha King. Sometimes they don't, as is the case with Soon Yi Allen. In this particular instance all of Resnick's notability stems from her work with her husband. I haven't really found anything that would show that she's established any notability outside of her husband. If there were articles that focused on her or if she'd written anything by herself that had received coverage, then she'd merit an article. Since she hasn't, she doesn't merit her own article. However she is mentioned in relation to her husband so a merge and redirect would be appropriate.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per consensus to Mike Resnick, minus the dead links.  Mephistophelian (contact)  16:54, 31 December 2012 (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.