Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nora Bateson


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nora Bateson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has no references to independent sources, and I have failed to find anything that would establish notability Maproom (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cancel the above remark - I had failed to notice the actual references, which I have now moved into the "References" section. The HuffPost article seems acceptable, I don't have access to the Formenti book. Maproom (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - has some independent coverage and is above only being a press release page. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete does not have enough coverage to justify an article on this filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The article reads like gibberish but there appears to be a minimal amount of sourcing adequate to meet GNG.   Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable or not, all of the content is pretentious nonsense, a poor attempt at promotion by an obvious COI account, and unworthy of an encyclopedia. TNT and let a neutral editor recreate it if anybody cares to.  Sandstein   18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT; this is strictly a vanity page, with poetic language and outsized claims. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Weakly sourced, including self-citations. HuffPo is a blog and is generally not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep [Declaration of interest: I am Bateson's publisher]. Above claims of 'pretentious nonsense' and 'gibberish' seem close to trolling. In what sense are Sandstein and Coffman qualified to make these unsupported judgements? Have they read her work? Bateson's work is credible, ground-breaking, influential and acclaimed. Her book, just published, is good confirmation of this. Additional refernecing from the International Bateson Institute to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarey (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 October 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.