Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaryJane Butters


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

MaryJane Butters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotion, promotion, promotion. Pepper Beast   (talk)  20:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC) *Delete Or merge with WP:PROMO (lol) CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, one of the biggest WP:REFBOMBs I've ever seen, yet still saying nothing about why she's worth an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the refbombing is actually just duplicate refs. Clearly whoever started the page didn't have much experience with wiki syntax and conventions. pburka (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update, I'd be willing to change my vote is anyone is willing to do the level of work this article needs. I'm usually one to jump in and improve them, but this one is a bit over the top and seems like a great candidate for WP:TNT. CT55555 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update 2, OK, my first reaction was harsh. I'd support draftify and will support a keep if someone improves it enough before the AfD ends. CT55555 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify I am a relatively new (several months Wikipedian and this is my first AfD entry, though I have been reading and studying the deletion discussions for a couple of months to learn how things work. So forgive me if I don't get all the subtleties here, but this nomination has me totally confused because the subject of the article appears to be quite notable by Wikipedia's media-driven definition. I don't know anything about this person, but I am interested in publishing and environmental issues, so this caught my attention. I was moved to make my first Afd comment here because I truly don't understand how this is a candidate for deletion: It appears that there are tons of solid references that cover this person in detail, and that she easily meets notability for authors, and that (if what is written in the article is true), that she is notable and successful. The problem I see is that the author of the article did not give links to references. I think it would be easy to edit the promotional tone out of the article and delete the puffery and any exaggerated claims that are not substantiated by a reference. Less easy would be to fix the references by digging up and adding links so they could be checked. (There is a link to the More magazine series -- that was a major women's magazine in the US for many years.) But wouldn't those be appropriate issues to undertake in draftifying the article? Geophiliac (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm normally quick to jump in an improve articles. The problem with this one is that it is exceptionally promotional and it seems to me that it has been written by a single purpose editor (see WP:SPA for promotional purposes and I say that after looking into the activities of the article creator.
 * I hope this conversation does not discourage you from writing about environmental issues, which are of course not likely to be challenges as being promotional in nature.
 * Wikipedia guides encourage the sort of activity you are planning to do and discourage people who join for SPA type activity. CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I checked the history log for both the article and the creator and noted that the article was written by a seeming SPA -- but my understanding is that if notability is proved, that SPA is not in and of itself cause for deletion (if the issues can be fixed). Anyway, if the article survives Afd, and is either kept or draftified, I will attempt to edit for neutrality and add some missing reference links -- though I think culling all those references will be a multi-editor project because of the volume. I'd be interested in doing some of that  just to get a little more Wikipedia mileage under my belt! Geophiliac (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable and the tone problems can be fixed through editing. She was profiled in The New Yorker in 2004. The New York Times reviewed her book in 2008. And in 2021 Oprah Daily included her in a list of "food cultivators who are changing the way America eats." pburka (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment other sources include: a San Antonio Current review of MaryJane's Ideabook, Cookbook, Lifebook in 2005, e.g. "offers a few insights and surprises, as well as some downright bizarre, banal, and perniciously bourgeois practices for everyday living."; Travel + Leisure coverage in 2011, e.g. "Butters’s B&B celebrates glamping (glamour + camping) [...] Butters claims a 2004 New Yorker profile on her was a search-and-destroy mission, and she may never recover from the article's most notorious line, "Butters is a farmer in the same way that Martha Stewart is a housewife.""; a 2003 Associated Press timeline profiling "The life of Mary Jane Butters" from 1956 through 2001, and a more detailed version compiled by the Lewiston Morning Tribune; Twin Cities Daily Planet coverage in 2010, e.g. "A chauffeur-driven black sedan arrived with farm idol MaryJane Butters. Butters is known as FarmGirl Sister #1 and is the founder of the FarmGirl Sisterhood [...] There are now 773 FarmGirl Sisterhood chapters in 48 states and seven countries." There are also mentions of her books as influential in Wisconsin Lady Glampers turn heads at campsite (WEAU13, 2020) and Vintage trailers a popular trend among multiple generations (The Columbian, 2017), and The Dickinson Press in 2014, e.g. "Butters is credited with coining the term “glamping.”" Beccaynr (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also: Idaho woman positions self as Stewart's rural successor (AP, 2003, multiple reprints exist), Spokesman-Review, 1998, Mary Jane's green dream realized; Following footsteps of Martha Stewart, organic entrepreneur launches magazine (Moscow-Pullman Daily News, 2002). Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue cleaning up - the article has been substantially improved during this discussion, and sources identified here and several in the article support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cleaned up the article some but it still needs work. I agree with other editors that some of the sources point to notability, but the article definitely should be pared down. Those sources show notability. The article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Today, I de-orphaned article, my tiny contrib. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2022 (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.