Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney E Martin


 * 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   keep. Per the sources provided below, I'm withdrawing this nomination. (Thanks go to User:Opabinia regalis for finding those fantastic sources.) The article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Courtney E Martin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every source in the article is primary - including the New York Times piece, which is just an excerpt of a conversation between Martin and another feminist. Therefore, the article's subject does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG, as the subject has not been covered directly and in detail by reliable secondary sources. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While every source in the article is primary, I don't think that necessarily means that Martin is not notable--it could also reflect a bias toward who gets profiled by secondary sources. Furthermore, the page was created by students, and deletion seems a steep price for a rectifiable confusion about sources. Finally, Martin is a published author who has be interviewed on national radio and given a TEDtalk; all of these (easily verifiable) facts would seem to qualify her as sufficiently notable; especially when Wikipedia has a stated goal of being more inclusive toward women and women's topics. Daclausen (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I have searched through Google news for Courtney E Martin, and there are many entries. However all are either primary writings by her, or are only brief mentions, for example saying she wrote a book. So I suggest that this page be moved to a Draft space page until it is referenced suitably. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I saw this and thought "What? Of course she's notable." This article in The Nation is in-depth coverage of the femfuture event and its context, with a shorter discussion of the same event in Bitch Magazine; the book she co-edited, Click, was reviewed here in Feminist Teacher (I don't have access but someone with Project MUSE access can have a look), she was profiled in Sadie Magazine; she's discussed multiple times in this book, A Little F'd Up: Why Feminism is Not a Dirty Word (ISBN 1580053718). Maybe you need to turn safesearch off? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The A Little F'd Up: Why Feminism is Not a Dirty Word book is not exactly independent of her since she wrote the promotional cover text for it. But two of your other refs looks independent and substantial, so I will change to keep. (Her name is not always used with the "e".) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because she's such a prolific writer online you have to go a few pages deep into Google to find things written about her, rather than things she's written but I think the evidence above is sufficient for her to be notable. Arianna (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am a WP:Deletionist, but she seems Notable. The article should be trimmed, though, with all the stuff based on blogs and other such non-reliable sources removed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (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.