Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Cohen (second 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Marion Cohen
Relisting: the (previous AfD of 23 August 2006) was closed early with no consensus because the article had been deleted, but it was then recreated (albeit in a shortened form). The original citation by Friday read:

"Vanity page about an academic, full of stuff like "Cohen describes herself as "math prof / mathematician / poet / writer / classical pianist /thrift-shopper / mother / grandmother / scrabbler extraordinaire". Sure, a sucessfull career as an academic, but unless having a job euqals notability, there's not much of substance here. Sometimes I'd speedy stuff like this, but there's already been some talk page discussion so I figure it's best to give this one some discussion in case there's disagreement."

I'm neutral here. Espresso Addict 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment MathStatWoman created the page and left a comment on the talk page using the first person. Seems like a vanity to me. SliceNYC 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete NN bio - original article was deleted because of copyvio, but it looks to me like all the copyvio has been stripped out of this version. Changed to keep based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. It now passes "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" (IMO) Brian 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball Updated Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Delete blatant vanity for a minor academic/amateur writer/whatever else. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:VANITY, WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. Want me to keep going? Daniel .Bryant  08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No Daniel, that'll do for me ;) Th ε Halo Θ 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay, I have no more business here :) *runs off to vote on other AfD's* Daniel .Bryant  11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : I've seen others assert that "all professors are notable". Is that belief not in play here? Valrith 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that has been superceded by WP:PROF. ColourBurst 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. She's a notable writer. I got the titles and other bibliographic information about her books from the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov/ TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the history shows that the original AfD was never completed and the AfD tag not added to the article. I found it tagged as a speedy copyvio. Part of the article was a copyvio and I deleted based on her being non-notable. After TruthbringerToronto pointed out that she did have some claim to notability I restored the article and removed the copyvio material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete . as vanity. Article introduces her as academic, and she fails WP:PROF with gusto. Leibniz 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While NN as an academic, she might be notable as an author, given enough independent evidence. I'm neutral now. Leibniz 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. If she "she fails WP:PROF with gusto", that doesn't matter, because she should be evaluated as a writer, and she is a notable writer. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you establish why she is notable as a writer? Right now the criteria for that is this:


 * Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work


 * I can see pretty clearly that her books definitely exist, but other than that, I see one possible non-trivial independent review, and no notable awards. The threshold for inclusion isn't that she's just written the books- they need to be notable books too. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per my logic above. The subject does not meet criteria proposed in either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and her works do not meet criteria proposed in WP:BOOK. As a professor she has not established herself as particularly outstanding in her field, and as an author she hasn't received any significant acclaim. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this nn vanity page per above. Pathlessdesert 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the current version now does meet WP:BIO based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. (Thanks Truthbringer) Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Comment I don't believe the article yet evidences multiple independent reviews of the sort that are meant. The MentalHelp.net one is a solid independent review.  The Temple University Press one looks like it is - but on closer inspection they are the publisher of the book in question, so the review can't be called independent.  Whe WISSP and Greenwood things don't muster up to being reviews in my eyes.  05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This person is clearly notable if for no other reason than as an author. Amazon.com is often useful in finding independent reviews (I don't mean reviews by users, it lists "Editorial reviews") see  . See also  &  (these are listed in the external links). Has anyone bothered to search the academic literature? (most of which is not google searchable). Mi kk er (...) 11:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. While she is obviously a prolific writer, I'm not sure that she's a notable one. The combination of her lterary works outside of her field (mathematics) argues a kind of notability, though. Since she did not create the page, I don't feel it is vanity or intentional self-promotion. --Dennette 13:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I believe she did create the page. Not that it matters now- she's apparently left Wikipedia. --Wafulz 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into this in detail, but MathStatWoman has been accused of creating more than one supposedly autobiographical page. Not all the accusations can be well founded. Espresso Addict 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Plese see Talk:Marion_Cohen ... about half-way down the page, she signs in as Mathwoman (not to be confused with MathStatWoman, author of the page), identifies herself by name, and says, "I had not realized that I was in Wikipedia, and I'm pleased!" I had to look at the discussion pages of both users (and all of the history pages) to figure it out before I made my Weak Keep recommendation. --Dennette 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I haven't looked into this in detail but MathStatWoman has been accused of using a variety of different socks. I don't know whether any of the associations were proven. Espresso Addict 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, run-of-the-mill professor. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with Zoe (above) and Pathlessdesert.  Hope this is ok to say this time. Benjamin K 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fall on the other side of Dennette's comments, in that while she might be a prolific writer, her work is not particularly notable. (And, as mentioned before, she is not notable as an academic.) 24.126.199.129 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the evidence provided by Mikkerpikker, appears to be notable. RFerreira 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a published author of many books, including reviews are listed on the article page, that meets WP:BIO. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mikkerpikker --Pjacobi 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a notable authoe per Mikkerpikker &mdash; Paul August &#9742; 04:27, 30 August 2006 (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.