Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Power


 * 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 no consensus on her notability, default to delete. (This is my first time closing an OTRS-initiated AfD as such, so please do drop me a line if you're more an admin more experienced in handling such AfDs and think I've done it wrong.) Deryck C. 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nina Power

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deletion requested by the subject via OTRS (2011121110010362 for the record) citing limited notability and harassment concerns. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - "...harassment concerns?" What exactly does that mean? I'm inclined to oppose deletion, the second paragraph list several published works in notable publications. What is going on here?Greg Bard (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - when a BLP subject requests deletion of their article via OTRS, it is common practice that the OTRS agent responding to the ticket offers to begin an AfD on the subject's behalf. This is the case here. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question I'm new to this, so I apologize if I ask an obvious question: are you certain that the request was sent by the subject of the article? The article itself seems innocuous and unlikely to spur harassment. Are there, perhaps, specific passages that are causing a problem? TreacherousWays (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note The legitimacy of the request was confirmed prior to the AfD being initiated. I really cannot give any additional details outside of what I have already provided. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - With all due respect to Dr. Power, people don't have any control over whether or not they have a Wikipedia entry. Can you imagine if they did?! It would become standard practice for all lawyers of all notable people to request deletion. I would be fascinated to hear the reason behind the request, but am not inclined to deny the public. There really is no crying about it from someone who publishes in philosophy and journalism. Other than that... clearly notable. I hope this isn't just another person who holds WP in low esteem. Greg Bard (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose In the absence of a compelling reason, the article should be kept. The subject is notable and a very public figure. If the article is biased, it should be edited and brought in line with BLP guidelines. If there are vandalism issues, those could be addressed with article protections and blocking. If there are harassment issues in the really-real world, those need to be taken up with Law Enforcement. The personal safety of Ms Power must be held paramount, but I have heard nothing that suggests the article constitutes a threat to her. As Greg Bard rightly points out, deleting articles without a valid reason would be a problematic policy. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject is a lecturer, editor, occasional columnist, and has raised some hackles regarding themes of feminism and Marxism. Overall marginal notability, probably meets the letter of some insipid sub-notability guide like WP:PROD or ACADEMIC, but honestly, stop and think of what an encyclopedia is here for.  Cataloging every college professor/blogger/editor is not a primary goal of the project; if such a person on the barest edges of actual notability does not wish to have a Wikipedia presence (e.g. Daniel Brandt) then they have that right. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've used this as a joke line for years, but it has the ring of truth: if it wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the bare minimum. If Powers meets notability criteria but wants her article deleted, should it be deleted? What about the involved editors who spent time collecting and recording facts and references? This situation is the mirror-image of someone not-notable who *wants* an article - and we know how that debate ends. In the absence of a real policy-related reason, the article ought to stay (note: I don't know Powers from dirt; fell into this from I-don't-know-where and I am only arguing policy. If a guideline says the article should go, it should go, but from where I'm sitting it looks like weak keep). TreacherousWays (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What correlation is there between how much work editors put into an article and whether the article should be kept or not? I can put a lot of effort into blowing into a popped balloon, but it's still a popped balloon. If emotional appeal is a good reason to keep, it's a good reason to heed the wishes of the subject. And in that argument, the subject wins because harassment in her real life is more important than the loss of clicks finding links and research a few editors did. --173.55.205.67 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the editors' efforts, but you didn't address my other point: If Powers meets notability criteria but wants her article deleted, should it be deleted? My gut says "no" for reasons similar to why we don't allow spam articles: this is an encyclopedia. She's notable, so the article should stay. If she has issues with the content of the article, there are other remedies she should purusue. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article has nothing wrong with it. It is about a person. I think that if some people contribute to it it will be a fine article. Algamicagrat (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Algamicagrat. Clearly notable. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps the last two editors to !vote here could expand their motivation a bit and ground it in policy. As it is, their "keep" !votes basically boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, not a very strong argument in an AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relister's comment: I have OTRS access, but apparently not the permissions needed to view the ticket. Could those who have comment on whether the concerns of harrassment appear credible? Without information about this, this aspect of the request may be disregarded in the eventual closure.  Sandstein   17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Turns out I could access the ticket after all; thanks, Ponyo. The harrassment concerns refer to past onwiki conduct that is (if repeated) not, I think, beyond the capacity of administrative actions to adequately address. As such, I do not think that these concerns must necessarily weigh heavily in the decision about whether or not to keep the article.   Sandstein   18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't get the harassment concerns, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, the nom does not make a strong case for "limited notability."  Notability is relative, depending on the scope of interest.  So, someone may be very notable in an academic field, but not at all notable in the general populace. Roodog2k (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Sandstein. Subject obviously meets WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no evidence of harassment and there are certainly enough reliable sources to meet the GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The fact that she writes stuff which gets published and which creates "sources" about her isn't really controlling for whether she meets WP:GNG. There's a fair argument that she doesn't meet GNG.  If some of her scholarship should be addressed in a substantive article about her research subjects, fine.   I am ok deleting in an instance like this based on the subject's request.  I am a die-hard inclusionist, but many of these keep votes "she's a person"--really?  What's the best case, sources, etc., for notability.  Let's be fair to living humans, and keep her if notable, but delete her if very marginal.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep subject meets WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irrespective of the OTRS request, closer inspection shows notability problems, in my view. While she is a sometime contributor to The Guardian and ad-hoc commentator in a few other media outlets, it does not appear that she has been significantly "noted" by others. Her research scholarship is pretty mediocre, 4 papers in WoS having only a single citation among them, and her few books are not widely held by institutions. Her One Dimensional Woman is prominently discussed in the article, but has only ~90 holdings. She is a coauthor on On Beckett with ~120 holdings. (These figures are relatively small, e.g. compared to the just-concluded case of Ian Dowbiggin whose book holdings are in the thousands.) The most misleading aspect of this article is that it lists one of her books as Shelia Rowbotham presents Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While widely held (~3500), Power is evidently not one of the authors of this publication (according to WorldCat, Amazon, Verso, etc.). Discounting the last book, I think notability, by our conventional standards, is not demonstrated. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Postscript. If the article is ultimately kept, then the "Interviews", "Film and TV Appearances", and "Radio Appearances" should be deleted. The entirety is unsourced ephemera. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete Agricola44's analysis is quite thorough and has convinced me that this does not meet WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- there is really much less here than meets the eye, and this person does not meet PROF, BIO, or GNG. I would urge close inspection of the keep votes above: one says "per Sandstein", but Sandstein does not recommend keep; another merely addresses the question of whether harassment should be considered but does not provide evidence of notability.  Agricola44 has offered the most insightful analysis of her record.  Even if this AfD looks like "no consensus", please consider closing it per WP:BIODEL -- in the presence of a request by the subject, no consensus may be closed with deletion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agricola44 has it, I think. With all due respect to the subject notability is borderline at best - and her request tips the scales toward deletion, as per doing no harm. That said, as per WP:USUAL, if the subject becomes more notable down the line - a high-profile publication or some other project that gets widespread coverage, for example - an article might be warranted. The more notable the subject is, generally the more likely it is that their article would be kept, all requests from the subject notwithstanding - and the subject should be aware of that possibility. The only way to ensure that no article will ever be written about you would be to go do something obscure. High-profile scholarship is not that. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:06, 7 February 2012 (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.