Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (2nd 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD G4, article is a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The article was previously in deleted in accordance with the subject's request via deletion discussion, and comparing the deleted article to the current one, they are virtually identical. Will also SALT. Noting for the record that there is a strong consensus to delete thus far as well. S warm  ♠  21:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Marlene A. Eilers Koenig
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a request from the subject of the article to delete the article. The individual is marginally notable, and sourcing is marginal at best. Moreover, since the previous discussion, there has been no significant improvements to the article, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject describes herself as an internationally recognized expert on British and European royalty,, and is described in similar terms by reliable sources , , . Corrections in content are always welcome, but persistent blanking of the article by its purported subject, on the grounds that it's 'piss poor,' aren't grounds for deletion. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional context See discussion on the user's talk page: User talk:Marlenekoenig, including a previous conversation about this content that was blanked at, Sadads (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. There are four sources currently in the article: a book listing at the National Library of Australia, a Washington Post story that mentions her snapping photos of a royal marriage, an article labeled "Biography" that is actually a piece written by the subject on an English royal marriage 500± years ago, and an article that mentions her in passing and quotes her blog. The article lacks enough merit to justify staying around—especially since these concerns were raised five years ago and not addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete what c.fred says. simply does not meet inclusion criteria. per what editor claiming to be her says-- "a real encyclopedia would check sources". And we need sourcing that is about her, not the queen's extended family. -- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think she's notable. Once deleted, the article should be salted to discourage COI recreation. Deb (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely fails WP:GNG, with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that I can see. And Salt while we are at it. First Light (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NotARabbit (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per C.Fred's analysis of the very poor references now in the article. Passing mentions calling her an expert in British royalty are inadequate to establish notability. The subject's hostility and general bad behavior are unfortunate and that reflects quite poorly on her, but she is correct that this article should be deleted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:22, 28 May 2018 (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.