Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna M. Marbach (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 03:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Donna M. Marbach
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Extremely minor local poet who fails WP:AUTHOR and who does not meet the requirements of WP:BK or WP:BIO. No WP:RS whatsoever presented or available. Tagged for notability since May, 2010, without a single source added in that time. Issues of WP:AUTO and WP:COI as well. The organization founded by the subject was recently deleted at AfD. Qworty (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. I think there's a major conflict of interest as the creator of the article appears to be a SPA (which brings up OWN as well). Furthermore, I grew up in the area where she lives, and I've never even heard of her. --23 Benson (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As an author, appears to have had a few works published, but there doesn't appear to be any critical commentary about her works, thus failing WP:CREATIVE. More importantly, there's nothing else out there about her, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG. The rest looks more like a resume. -- Kinu t /c  09:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: A lot of small accomplishments that add up to enough to keep per WP:BIO on authors. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be frank, this rationale seems very flimsy. A laundry-list that might may or may not meet WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE does not mean that WP:GNG can be ignored (indeed, the basic criterion of WP:BIO is the satisfaction of WP:GNG). Especially important given that this is a WP:BLP. -- Kinu t /c  15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Ret.Prof's argument-from-accumulation has the further demerit that there's nothing in the guideline cited in support of it (WP:BIO) that says that a lot of small accomplishments add up to general notability. Yakushima (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Given the dearth of other sources directly about her, I concluded that her notability hinges entirely on WP:AUTHOR's condition that "[t]he person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." She's edited or co-edited a number of books, after all.  Maybe something there?  Alas, none of those books show up at google book search as having been reviewed "in any of the usual places".  Except for one edit to Grey, the article's originator (User:DMMPoet) is WP:SPA for Donna M. Marbach, and clearly doesn't mean to make a secret of that.  Under WP:AGF, my guess is that she just thought she was notable enough (possibly under the all-too-common WP:OTHERSTUFF assumption).  She might well agree, if she were in on this discussion, that her bio doesn't make the cut.  If so, a speedy delete here will help us get on to all that misleading OTHERSTUFF, of which there never seems to be any shortage. Yakushima (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is inside WP:BIO and should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I ask again, which part of WP:BIO is met, and where are the WP:RS? Considering this is a WP:BLP, actually providing some rationale would be more helpful than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. -- Kinu t /c  00:43, 4 February 2011 (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.