Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Forsten


 * 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. Some people thought it kinda smelled notable, but in the end I think there is consensus to delete here. COI doesn't help. -- Y not? 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Michele Forsten

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable public relations person. Autobiography and fails WP:CREATIVE. Has written plays and articles (described by subject as "essays") receiving nonnotable recognition. Subject of article has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources, nontrivial in nature, focusing on this person, and playwright section is not adequately sourced and it is not clear if it can be. Google News Search of "michele forsten playwright" yields nothing. Does not appear to fit the four criteria in this part of the notability guideline for creative people. Google News indicates a number of hits in her capacity as a public relations person for a New York City technical college, but that is insufficient to establish notability in that field.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (chinwag)  @ 23:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (articulate)  @ 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (confer)  @ 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (articulate)  @ 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lesion  ( talk ) 14:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh right, we have to give a reason? ("DeleteyMcSheep" =D ) Then I agree this person is not notable for their own page...and this is compellingly argued by the initial poster above... it doesn't seem to be notable according to policies either. Lesion  ( talk ) 09:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - May meet GNG, some of the "citation needed" tags are added when the citation is already given, but not cited in accordance with typical Wikipedia referencing styles. It seems silly to have the tags when the location is mentioned in explicit detail. It needs work, but deletion is not cleanup. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that a claim that a play was produced needs to be cited, and that's not available anywhere. The utter lack of coverage of basic facts is part of the reason why GNG and CREATIVE isn't met here. Cleanup will not rectify the notability issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  02:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * weak Keep Somewhat notable as a playwright, since her work has been included in anthologies. Not notable as a PR person. Hard to tell about notability as an advocate, but at least the playwriting has a good criterion. .  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but they don't seem to be notable anthologies, so as to rise to the level that an article is warranted on their author. Looking at the criteria in WP:CREATIVE, I just couldn't see any justification for this article. Honestly, if she hadn't written this herself, as she admits to have done, would anyone write an article on this person? I wish her well, and hope that someday her work rises to the level that warrants a Wikipedia bio, but at this stage I think it's clear that the criteria just are not met. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is a good example of why our conflict of interest rules are too weak. Subject of the article is a college public relations person who has a hobby of writing plays and articles. The article was created by an account created by Ms. Forsten. Despite being specifically cautioned not to do so, after creating this article she actively edited it and continues to do so to this day. It was originally copied from her website, but some alterations have been made since then. Wikipedia readers have a right to expect that articles are written by persons unconnected with the subject of the article, and that expectation is not met in this instance. I agree that Ms. Forsten's personal story is inspiring. But she simply has not met the level of coverage in independent, reliable sources for an article about her, or that her prominence as a playwright meets the GNG criteria. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - promotional.Deb (talk) 15:17, 18 June 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.