Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maura Quint


 * 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 delete. I discounted arguments presented by sockpuppets. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Maura Quint

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN notable writer. References consist of examples of her tweets, inclusion in lists, or brief mentions of her. No in-depth secondary coverage of the subject. Fails to establish notability. red dogsix (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This writer Maura Quint's notability is evidenced by the reach of her work, treatment of her by credible news sources as expert in the subject matter of alleged Twitter plagiarism and her prominence in American online humor. ```` Johnthethirdandfourth
 * Comment This is a tricky one. I agree that there's no in-depth secondary coverage of the subject, but she and/or her Twitter feed get passing mentions in many WP:RS, about the Josh Ostrovsky plagiarism allegations. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I spent time removing the heavy promotional tone from this article, and am now being rewarded with a shower of sockpuppets. Thanks for helping me make up my mind. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There has been secondary coverage of the subject. For example she has been the subject of interviews on podcasts. ```` Paulsimonmightbegiants
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Interviews are not secondary coverage, they are primary in nature. red dogsix (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am concerned that the improper inclusion of this entry as an article for deletion may perhaps reflect unintended anti-female bias. This article regards a significant subject, it conforms to Wikipedia standards and it should stay.Sarah Wilson 4 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Commment - Rather than make unfounded accusations, rather ugly ones at that, read WP:AGF and instead of making such horrible comments, please cite how this individual meets the criteria for inclusion.  red dogsix (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sarah Wilson 4 has been blocked as a sock of Paulsimonmightbegiants --David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete or Draftify I think the subject is WP:TOOSOON. I did a search on several databases, didn't find her. She's mentioned very often in the blogosphere and is on several big podcasts. But she doesn't pass the threshold for WP:GNG yet. No prejudice for recreate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnthethirdandfourth and Sarah Wilson 4 are ✅ puppets of ‎Paulsimonmightbegiants. See Sockpuppet investigations/Paulsimonmightbegiants.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and at best is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, nothing found in reliable sources which discuss the subject, only mentions in cited news sources (heres another one - ), is about her criticising Josh Ostrovsky, so a somthing could be added there?Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2016 (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.