Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Theoharis


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Liz Theoharis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional and non-notable. Worldcat lists only 1 book, Always with us which is not yet in any libraries--all her other publications" listed here are just essays in a collection or   book chapters.  Ref 1 is an unreliable press release, ref 2 a local article in he home city paper (I remove an article from the NYT  that barely mentioned her) . Everything else in the article is her own presentations.  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This article reads more like a promotional piece than a neutral Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Would pass WP:GNG as activist? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete: Fails WP:PROF (per WP:TOOSOON). The "two decades" bit in the lead is pure puffery (though it comes from a reliable source) - that could describe almost any Christian minister. What we have here is still a run-of-the-mill pastor-theologian. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this is the first article I have submitted to Wikipedia and I am still learning the ropes. I thought the idea was that article development is an iterative process? This is just a first draft, I have more to add, but work obligations will keep me from doing it until next weekend. I don't understand why it would be immediately marked for deletion, rather than a stub that requires more development? I have read the documents on notability and I don't see anything that would justify deleting the New York Times source because it "only" includes one quote from Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, while the whole second half of the article, 11 paragraphs, is about the organization she founded and runs, the Poverty Initiative. I also don't see anything that would render the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel not a credible source simply because she was born in Milwaukee. Is there such a rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydf15 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A reference about the organization will support an article on the organization. References need to give substantial coverage of the actual subject of the article. And I doubt the organization is notable either. It is not an independent organization, but just a program of Union Theological Seminary, and we rarely make articles in such circumstances.
 * But what further development of the article do you suggest is now possible? If her 2017 book should be a success and get major reviews in mainstream magazines and newspapers, there is a much better chance she'd be notable, and you could try again ,preferably in Draft space.  If she should eventually write a second book, and that also is a success, then she probably will be notable, and you should certainly try again.
 * The article attracted my attention because the notability hinges on a book that is just now being published; in my experience that usually indicates an article written to promote the book. Not always of course, but usually.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - this could be an interesting article, but appears to be WP:TOOSOON. I'm not finding anything on HighBeam, two items in news, nothing in newspapers, and 10 items in custom search, but I'm not seeing anything that would add a lot of content. There doesn't appear to be enough right now to establish notability, such as WP:GNG, or any topic specific notability guidelines.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON, certainly not enough notability at this point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable person.Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:21, 26 February 2017 (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.