Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Stablein


 * 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. But lets have neutrality or this will have to go back into draft for cleanup... Spartaz Humbug! 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Stablein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography based largely on primary sources. Would need a full rewrite to become an acceptable, neutral article. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Please refer to my suggestion well below to return to draft space. MY original comments are in the next para. I now favour 100% the return of this to Draft:
 * Having looked at the article and the references there are sufficient references to pass WP:BIO, thus there can be no justification in the deletion of the article. The lady passes WP:BIO. We are allowed certain use of primary sources under WP:PRIMARY, and a certain use of self published sources under WP:SELFPUB. These are matters to be addressed by editing the article and altering the references suitably. It may be that the article requires substantial editing, but deletion is not the correct answer. Fiddle   Faddle  19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep likely as I accepted this from AfC but also draft and userfy again if needed until better. SwisterTwister   talk  20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support returning to Draft: space if the consensus goes against keeping the article. There is work to do inside the article. This is as an addendum to my !vote to keep, above. Fiddle   Faddle  20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me too. I just think we shouldn't present this kind of material in main space. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly userfy- self-promoting autobiography with far too many primary sources. Would prefer delete over userfy, as it would send a stronger message that Wikipedia is not for autobiographies. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * weak delete I found no coverage about other than in small local presses. Userfy would be acceptable as well, although it might be simpler just to start from scratch --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am using the article talk page to log in outline what I believe is required. That may be a useful basis for those who either wish to edit this now, or to await possible migration to Draft: namespace. I agree with that autobiographies are deprecated, but, by custom, WP:AFC has provided a useful development area for those in the past. I hold them to a far higher standard prior to acceptance than I might with a non COI offering.  Fiddle   Faddle  22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - On the one hand, this is the best-sourced autobiography I have seen in a long time. On the other hand, it is an autobiography.  If Stablein is notable, someone can write a biography of a living person about her.  I suspect that she is notable, and that someone can write a biography.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This is the best-sourced autobiography I have seen in a long time. It reads like it was written by a professional writer (which it was).  However, it is an autobiography.  Maybe we need to revise the autobiography policy to clarify the matter of autobiographies.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Return to draft space or userfy: There is a Wikipedia-worthy article buried under all the unsourced assertions of fact and questionable ancillary sources. Reliable sources with poorly-formatted references, as we also see here, are still reliable. It will take a considerable amount of work to get the article up to standards, but the author has put in a considerable amount of work already and seems likely to continue making the effort needed. She has also availed herself of the Teahouse, and will be getting assistance from uninvolved editors in improving the article until it's ready for mainspace. Let's not discard all the work that's already been done just to be pointy. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinion
 * I would like to offer an opinion: A return to the draft space will allow me as the subject of the article, to edit the article with the suggestions made on this talk page to create a completely neutral tone, fix the External Links and references and cut the article down. Thank you for every consideration and for the helpful suggestions.Marilyn Stablein (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * nothing is stopping you from working on those tasks now. in fact beginning to self trim the promotional tone now would likely give some of those on the fence the push to say "userfy" rather than "delete" if you can demonstrate that you in fact can edit to a more appropriate tone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for the suggestion. Marilyn Stablein (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support returning to draft, then keeping after User:Shawn in Montreal fixes it up to standard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC) oops.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have me mixed up with User:Marilyn Stablein, who made this offer. Of course, subjects should not be editing their own articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm String of books,, but the only major source coverage I found on a google news search is a single sentence shout-out in the NYTimes , paragraph 8 . That search is here:   plus  regional/local coverage  , and a gallery showing her art books . There are a couple of sources now in this enormously source-bloated article that support notability (#29 Vancouver Sun, #43 Seattle Times) but I am sitting on the fence here, looking for enough material to support an article that can pass WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't find anything to justify an article. I also really dislike the article. If I came across this, I would take such an axe to it that there would be nothing left. I can't see any decent content in amongst the heavily promotional tone. I also don't think we should entertain any suggestion by subject of editing the article in a draft-space until it reaches a point that non-connected editors are happy with it. This editor has made over 500 edits in over 18 months to their own article, now they've been rumbled, they should step back and not interfere with the article at all. Rayman60 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (or return to draft) A bit borderline, but there is just-about-significant coverage from a number of good quality sources. Needing a trim is not an argument for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG or at least one of her books, Sleeping in Caves, does. A search has brought up these (some already in article, some may not be useable?) - 3 reviews of Sleeping in Caves:  - LA Times of Dec 1985 - "Stablein has a piquant, brusque way with words, but this slender volume is the stuff of late afternoons and reminiscing over herbal tea. In 1985, this all seems a bit, well, dated and quaint.",  - Publisher's Weekly review of Sleeping in Caves - "Her travelogue is strikingly self-absorbed ... there's a paucity of information about the people she encounters." and "The effect is claustrophobic and meandering, although the book briefly coalesces in the chapter "Turning the Wheel," where the author writes, "My path circles, fans out like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond."", - Barnes & Noble site shows a Library Journal review - "Her detailed observations of cultural and religious rituals have scholarly merit, while her anecdotes on such topics as tea-making, meditation in caves, and innovative survival skills offer light and enjoyable entertainment.", .   - The Hollywood Star News (don't think this local community freebie newspaper useable for notability) of Sept 2015 discusses an exhibition of her art held at a local gallery,  - New York Times review of someone elses work that includes one of Stablein's books in a list so not notable,  - another local gallery displaying her works,  and - EBSCO Host lists 2 reviews of her books in Raven Chronicles magazine including another one for Sleeping in Caves. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 11:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources presented in the article and above convince me that the subject of this article comfortable meets GNG. The concerns here seem to be puffery/neutrality; in which case I don't think deletion is necessary, because the article is nowhere near bad enough to justify WP:TNT. Keep it, purge the puffery. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, with the understanding that any promotional tone can be trimmed and the author should abide by WP:COI. clpo13(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (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.