Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nan Koehler


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nan Koehler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mixed feelings about this. There are a couple reliable references about this midwife, but they don't focus on anything in the article, they focus on a single criminal prosecution, which is kinda BLP1E. There's some history of BLP issues in the history here, too, which increases my sense that a BLP1E deletion is the right approach here. Didn't see signficant reviews of the book, but I may have missed something. j⚛e deckertalk 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Took a while to evaluate her notability, partly because the article as written gives no indication why she might be considered notable. This LA Times article suggests two possible reasons: it says her book is "an essential reference for many midwives", and she was criminally prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to a year in jail. However, Google News search provides no evidence that the case had lasting impact. As for her book, Google Books finds some mentions but not significant coverage. All in all she fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP1E. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:BLP1E would seem to apply here. There is the trial coverage but that appears to be it for significant coverage.  Not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 26 March 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.