Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig


 * 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. There is no agreement on whether the sources are sufficient for notability. Per WP:DELPRO, this defaults to delete in BLP cases where the subject has requested deletion. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Marlene A. Eilers Koenig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Someone created this Wikipedia entry without my permission. I do not wish to be in Wikipedia. Period. Please remove my entry. I have no desire to be included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (Mrs.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenekoenig (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 April 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Delete. Strictly looking at the merits of the article, it fails WP:GNG. The sources do not cover the subject in depth. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not because of the subject's request, but because of the article's failure to meet the general notability guideline as mentioned above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just please remove it .. I did not ask for a Wikipedia entry. There is more information on my book jackets ...but I do not wish to be associated with this site. My students are not permitted to use Wikipedia ... and I do not wish to included. Remove me NOW. No debate. I have the right to be excluded, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenekoenig (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As discussed, a subject doesn't have a right to demand that she's not included because she doesn't like Wikipedia, Wikipedia doesn't need her permission, and there will be a discussion here.  There are a lot of links to the article, which suggest that she's being used as a WP:SOURCE.  As such, it may be worthwhile to help explain the source, especially if the source is her blog. A widely published and cited author, I'd lean towards keep actually. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: A Google search indicated her work was cited in some 100 articles or more (biographies of royals) before the biography was written, not all are linked to the article. Her book Queen Victoria's Descendants from 1987 is the standard reference on this topic and widely used as a source on the genealogy of the British Royal Family. She has coverage in third party sources, most recently. I think she clearly meets the criteria and the article would be useful especially because so many articles cite her work. The only reason to delete the article would be her wish to have it deleted. On the other hand, if you publish books and become an established expert on some topic, you will often have to accept that there is coverage of you in other media (eg., she probably didnt ask the individuals covered in her books for permission to include them either). Vinson wese (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She is also cited in many books by other authors in her subject area, royal genealogy, as indicated by a Google book search (note that she was formerly known as Marlene Eilers only). Many of those books are also well-known books by well-known authors. Works citing her include Helen Rappaport's biography of Queen Victoria, the Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy, Burke's royal families of the world, works by Greg King (author), etc. etc. She is a well-known figure internationally in royal genealogy. Vinson wese (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently well-known as an author that this is not in the borderline zone. If there is some special reason for deleting, it hasn't been mentioned. The reason for not filling these requests, is that otherwise we'd be the encyclopedia of those who want publicity, which would make us not an encyclopedia, but a advertising site.  DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -Fails WP:GNG. And not simply because the subject asks for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG. As usual, the subject's own appraisal of notability is irrelevant. Qworty (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. After some hesitation given the subject's desire not to have an article, I have to vote keep, because explaining a source used as such in over 100 Wikipedia articles with several published books that are widely used references seems more important than a subject's desire not be the subject of coverage. Someone who publishes books need to accept that they may be persons of some public interest relating to their publications/publication history. As pointed out by others, being opposed to the Wikipedia project is not a valid reason. Vinson wese (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder whether the subject gives the people that she writes about in her books a veto over their publication. It's rather surprising how many of the people who come here demanding that they shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia are themselves authors or journalists who write about other people. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Do we have any evidence that the person making the deletion request is in fact Marlene A. Eilers Koenig? Normally, these types of requests are vetted through OTRS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been corresponding with the Marlene through OTRS and provided her with AfD as a possible option to remove the article at her request. The ticket can be viewed here: . Mike V  •  Talk  02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This person has written notable works. We do not delete articles just because the subject wants us to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Uberaccount (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep On the merits of the subject per Vinson's discussion Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - only actual bio source is a bio blurb of the sort that tends to be supplied by the subject. This is not enough for WP:BLP. (Arguably, this should have been summarily deleted.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - For multiple reasons. As David Gerard mentions, I don't see a substantial biography on this person. I also fail to see which criteria this subject meets under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. @John Pack Lambert - re "This person has written notable works" - If that's so, why don't any of her works have WP articles? NickCT (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems like clear notability, with RS pointing towards that fact. Besides, her prominent presence within scholarship makes it all the more important that we have an article about her, Sadads (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2013 (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.