Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Buckman


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Buckman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This author seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC / WP:GNG. There only appears to be non-RS blog coverage of her work, nothing in RSs that would meet notability requirements. Even assuming they are all accurate, the reviews listed on the author's own website don't get there; neither does anything in the biography on the author's website. This does not appear to be the investigative journalist of the same name. I proded the article and it was deleted, but the article's creator subsequently challenged the prod on the deleting admin's talk page, so it was restored. Since then, the requesting editor nor anyone else has improved the article or provided any RSs to support notability. Novaseminary (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep While I couldn't find one press-issued book review and I suspect she's not notable, it's clear the page has active editors who haven't been given instructions on how to proceed to improve the article and instead are surprised by a deletion notice. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment But the subject (this particular author) must meet the criteria for inclusion, including WP:N. That determination does not depend on inexperienced editors' suprise at a deletion notice. It depends on coverage in RSs and the subject's satisfaction of the notability critera. Unless the subject is notable, the article should be deleted (WP:DEL / WP:N / WP:BIO). And it is not as if this is a brand new article. The page is nearly three years old, and has been tagged as an orphan for over a year and a half. Your conclusion that the author is non-notable should be the end of the story and should dictate a delete vote by you. Active editors or not, WP is not a web host. Novaseminary (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Novaseminary is, of course right. To say "I think that the subject of the article does not satisfy our notability criteria, but we should treat it as though it does because some editors don't understand our notability criteria" must be one of the oddest reasons for "keep" I have seen. In addition, if you think that editors don't understand our notability standard then isn't the constructive thing to explain it to them? I have checked the editing history of everyone who has edited the article since September 2008, and I have found only one editor who conceivably may be suffering from ignorance of our notability criteria, and I have explained the need for notability and sourcing to that editor, so even if CáliKewlKid's reason for "keep" ever had any basis, the problem is dealt with now. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Good Day, once again.
 * I did not conclude the author was not notable, I stated "I suspect" -- my conclusion is that I do not know because I am not an expert on Michelle Buckman.
 * An article tagged as Orphan is not at all comparable to the Notability tag.
 * Your advice on how I should vote is duly noted.
 * JamesBWatson, I appreciate your attempt at summarization but it seems a little off the mark (luckily I'm not William Tell's son).
 * If I were to try a similar summarization it would have gone more like "I think that the subject of the article may not satisfy the notability criteria but we should allow time (7 days is rather short in the real world) for other editors to put forth such sources."
 * I think it would be an excellent and very constructive to explain it to them, especially prior to deletion (which was not done).
 * I'm not sure how you know whether the editors were suffering from ignorance of the need for the article to establish notability but I in awe.
 * My Keep recommendation certainly still has basis because a good faith effort to establish sources for notability was not undertaken prior to the nomination (WP:N) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CáliKewlKid   (talk • contribs)  29 September 2010
 * Comment For a similar discussion with CáliKewlKid, see Articles for deletion/Alans and Mosku. I absolutely did conduct a good faith search for sources before nominating this article. I found nothing. No book reviews in published sources. Nothing. You would know that if you read my nomination (and the delete !votes of the other editors). And, not that it should matter, I would note that the article was created -- and has sat in this non-RS-sourced state almost three years -- by an editor who on September 19 of this year had this formerly proded article undeleted. Yet, that editor has not provided anyone even a single RS here or on the article. CáliKewlKid, if you think that any other editor shoud have something explained to them before the article is deleted, please go explain it to them. There is still time, the article has not been deleted. Novaseminary (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm aware that you believe your search alone is enough of a good faith effort but it would seem the policies disagree with you, as I've stated. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." (the next line makes note of adding the notability tag) And even failing those options, the recommendation is not deletion but merging with a broader article. I see no evidence of any of those steps being taken prior to the nomination for deletion (But it is quite true I could have missed them). In fact, a discussion may have saved all parties time:
 * It would not require review in AfD
 * It would involve the editors of the article, providing them guidance on how to properly contribute to Wikipedia.
 * If sources proving notability were available the editors would have a chance to make an effort to locate them.
 * But ignoring the time-saving appeal... The good faith efforts to establish notability are not limited to your browser window -- they should include the editors of the article or experts (if you are an expert in publishing of contemporary American literature then I apologize and withdraw my recommendation). -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done about as much searching (books, news, web) as one could do. The author is alive and active on the Internet; it is not like we are debating somebody dead for 100 years that may have been significantly covered in newspapers that are not available online. I would also expect (as I mentioned in the nom) that the author's own "Reviews" web page would note any notable reviews, whether online or not. None listed there comes close to meeting notability. In addition, the creating editor was warned almsot ten days ago here that "without sources, it is very likely to get deleted again" (also linked to in the nom). Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I have looked at the pages linked from the article, and i have also made web searches for more information. I have seen Buckman's own site, various blogspot pages, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, writers' promotion sites, etc etc. I have not seen anything that could remotely be seen as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources by the author herself, blogs, etc, aren't enough. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2010 (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.