Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Brown (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   keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellen Brown
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be noteworthy enough for an article. A previous version was deleted via AfD, but the new version does not appear to solve the problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see significant coverage of her in reliable sources.  What does exist seems to be local. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a well-written and well-sourced article with a wide-ranging variety of references.  I specifically noted a [Rose Bird] commendation in a 1979 California judicial ruling, acceptance of an article by the New York Times in 2013, and the 2011 in-depth article in Vermont Woman.  I found that Brown has a bio on, and regularly contributes to, Huffington Post, .  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As author of this article, I am aware that previous article, written by different author, was deleted. I am willing to make any changes explicitly suggested in this discussion. I believe subject has adequate notoriety and exposure to qualify as noteworthy. Wisconsota (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Try to find articles in reliable sources that discuss this person, rather than articles written by this person. Publishing an article in The New York Times does not make one notable.  When The New York Times writes an article about you, that makes you notable.  Book reviews of her work would also make her notable.  Blogs and other other self-published sites  don't count.  Primary sources also don't count toward establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As per the nutshell of WP:N, notable topics are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." There are many ways to establish wp:notability.  So when the editors of the New York Times select an author to publish, they are giving direct attention to that author.  In my !vote I specified "acceptance" of the article as the element of wp:notability.  The publication of the article generates further wp:notability when readers look at the name of the author.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, that's not how it works. Primary sources do not grant notability.  See WP:42 for a quick and easy version.  Sources must be independent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:42 seriously misrepresents our notability guidelines and has been subject of controversy for some time. If you look at its talk page you will discover that even its supporters admit that it should never be cited at AfD in any context. I suggest that you refer directly to WP:N. My reading of it is that GNG does not work in reverse and that a topic is not presumed to be non-notable only because it fails GNG. James500 (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Every single guideline, policy, and essay on Wikipedia has people who call it "controversial" and decry its use in deletion discussions – even WP:N, which some people have claimed is not a valid deletion rationale. Your objection is noted, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Don't cite WP42 at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep No basis for the original reasoning - I see significant coverage through references like Fox Business. Seems to pass basic WP:BIO SayItRight1 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you show where the coverage of Brown is in that link? It appears she's only an in-studio panelist for a segment, and it's not actually about her. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG. -- Green  C  16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Green Cardamom, where are the sources about her? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I find this a useful and important article. If there are any breaches of source protocol, please correct them, but do not delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydauncey (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 February 2014 (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.