Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda A. Malcor


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Linda A. Malcor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable "scholar". Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. References are mainly from Cambridge Who's Who which according to its WP page is a vanity publisher and are not independent of the subject. Article was largely written by the subject herself. WP:NOTRESUME  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete To reprise the nom, the current sources are 3 copies of vanity press, 2 versions of a Mercedes Lackey fan site (with really horrible formatting), and IMDB. None of those sounds independent or reliable.  I didn't even look to see if they were significant. Rockphed (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically per nom and Rockphed above. Nothing here to indicate passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. One minor correction to the nom's comment. The article was created (and extensively edited) by User:Malcor, who self-identifies, at his user-page, as the subject's ex-husband (rather than as the subject herself). Still, this is certainly a WP:COI case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have found 7 reviews of the book From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Holy Grail, but so far, no reviews of her fiction. That would suggest that the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, and this author could be redirected to the book - if someone wants to write an article about it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be a sensible option. I have the following... what other reviews do you have?
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Catfish Jim, the other one I found is this (in Ebsco as a bibliographic record only, not full text:
 * RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed another, catalogued in Worldcat, in Choice Reviews Online, v32 n05. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Catfish Jim, the other one I found is this (in Ebsco as a bibliographic record only, not full text:
 * RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed another, catalogued in Worldcat, in Choice Reviews Online, v32 n05. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed another, catalogued in Worldcat, in Choice Reviews Online, v32 n05. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed another, catalogued in Worldcat, in Choice Reviews Online, v32 n05. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. BLP from early days of WP written by a short-lived SPA (evidently husband, as noted above), whose first edit was to dreate this article. Scythia book cited around 100 times, but there's essentially nothing else going to notability. No real RS either (also, as noted above). Agricola44 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete we need to delete all articles created by family members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Melia review, in particular, makes clear how WP:FRINGEy her Arthurian theories are, much more so than our article does. In any case nothing in the article is adequately sourced or presents even a plausible case for notability. The reviews of the book make it potentially notable, and if an article on the book existed then we could redirect the author's name to it per BIO1E, but do we really need an article on a book of badly-argued fringe Arthuriana theories? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Do we need it?" may be unanswerable, although it is in 338 libraries, according to Worldcat, so some readers might look for more information about it or its authors. And it did influence King Arthur (2004 film) (which apparently has many historical inaccuracies apart from any about Arthur). If anyone wrote an article, objectively representing what the reviews say about the book, then we could certainly keep it per WP:NBOOK - but it's certainly not at the top of my to-do list (actually, it's not on it at all). RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to From Scythia to Camelot if anyone wants to take up the challenge of summarizing reviews of the book. Otherwise delete. Haukur (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (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.