Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcia Wilbur


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Marcia Wilbur

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Out of the listed references:


 * [2], [8], [13], [15], [16], [17] do not mention the person in the article at all


 * [1], [5], [7], [9], [14], [18] are primary sources by the person in the article and they don't appear to be notable (WP:BASIC, WP:BLPSELFPUB)


 * [3], [4], [6], [10] are about two books that the person in the article wrote about a legal subject. No secondary sources can be found that mention them (WP:PRIMARY, WP:USEBYOTHERS) and the author does not appear to have a law degree (WP:BOOKCRIT, WP:PROMOTION)


 * [11] is about an open-source project supposed to be lead by the person in the article. The website does not work, the Github repository has been emptied, the Gitlab repository has 27 commits, of which none seem to be about coding (only small documentation changes), last updated more than a year ago. The person in the article appears as the author of 2 commits only. (WP:INHERENTWEB)

About the article:
 * Almost all of it appears to be a collection of unimportant, non-notable information about the person in the article (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)
 * It is about a living person and lists personal details without sources, both at the infobox and the article itself (WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:VERIFY)

About the person listed in the article:
 * I believe that "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" (WP:OVERCOME) and the article of the subject is not worth an article in Wikipedia. Comagfr (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable individual lacking sourcing that passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * citations added and unvalidated info removed - 8 November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8B80:9B2:3D08:9CEC:D6EE:34A2 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The recent edits don't affect the central argument; I believe this individual is not notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Comagfr (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Deelte - The references in the article fail to establish notability nor do they even come close. My own searches turn up nothing that would hint at notability. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2020 (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.