Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson


 * 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 keep. --Core des at 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ophelia Benson
she is not notable; i think it is enough. --Babel2000 15:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, unexplained nomination from account established only to nominate this article for deletion. Ban the nominator for disruption, not that he/she will ever be heard from again. VivianDarkbloom 19:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this an ad hominem argument? Dar-Ape 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Did you miss "unexplained"? Why don't you make comments like this in response to SPA support comments? Creating a sockpuppet account for the purpose of a single discussion is often a sign of vandalism in progress. VivianDarkbloom 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, creating a sockpuppet account for the single purpose of a running some sort of crusade is often a sign of trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point without personal consequence. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Truthful" is a word that descrives little of your collective commentary, and none of it here. I've described the situation that led me to use this ID, publicly, and I sent you an email desribing it privately. Youre responses have been disgusting and dishonest. And anybody who's working hand in sock with User:Mattisse has any business complaining about nonabusive, open use of multiple accounts. VivianDarkbloom 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've actually sent me e-mail, no doubt my spam filter automatically disposed of it. Meantime, mind pointing me to the "disgusting" and "dishonest" portions of my comment? The truth is, your "crusade" has gotten yourself some scrutiny, none of it positive. Though as a self-admitted sockpuppet, you'd not suffer any consequences for your behavior -- which is, ironically, confirmation of my statement. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. An editor of a website w/o article here, no indication of notability unless posting 1 - 3 blogs every single day counts. Pavel Vozenilek 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; no assertion of notability (since merely being an editor of a Web site does not confer notability, hallelujah), and censure VivianDarkbloom for her call to ban the nominator ➥the Epopt 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * change my recommendation for article to no opinion; my other recommendation and opinion stands unchanged ➥the Epopt 20:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nonnotable blogger. And what was unexplained about the nom?  It says "she is not notable." Inelegant, but adequate. Keep per the helpful work of Truthbringer Toronto.  No apology forthcoming to the nasty and personal-attacking Vivian Darkbloom.  All she had to do was give a reason in her first comment, above ("Ms. Benson has published two well-known books, see ____") rather than attack the nominator.  NawlinWiki 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep (see below). And apparently, VivianDarkbloom is a backup account established to vote for adminships and deletions under a different name. Whatever that's about. Auto movil 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Despite the personal attacks by the author upon me, I will agree that the article has improved and is now notable enough and sourced enough to keep. -- Kf4bdy  talk contribs 02:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per original notability concern and NawlinWiki. Dar-Ape 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Without trying to fan the flames on this already volatile AFD, I will say that WP:AGF has been violated several times, and I ask users to please keep a cool head and not assume that someone who disagrees with you is editing with malignant intent. Even if one is not feeling especially jovial, a simple statement of opinion regarding the content in question without other thoughts will do.  On that note, I have changed my mind per the assertions of nobility present here and on the article page, principally the two published books.


 * Unless you have a personal comment (which is perfectly fine), please keep all further concerns regarding this AFD here, as such concerns are relevant to all users reviewing this AFD, and attempting to post on the talk pages of all users involved is impractical. Thank you, Dar-Ape 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a sign of notability or evidence that the world has taken note of this person; probably speediable, even. And censure VivianDarkbloom for trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point with his misplaced (to be charitable) call for a ban of the nominator. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Gosh, thanks for all those well-thought-out, carefully checked commets. In the future, to improve the level of your contributions to Wikipedia, might I suggest you improve your practices in two areas. First, you should actually read the article you are commenting on, and take note of its contents. Second, you should consider the claims made in the article against the relevant notability criteria, even, as necessary, checking the references and external links provided for the article..Ophelia Benson is a well-known published author, not merely a blogger (although she is probably notable as a blogger, too). Her two books are listed by title in the article,even though none of you astute readers noticed that. (Apparently the identification of Benson as an "author" and the listing of the book titles in distinctive type was insufficient to tip off careful and well-informed Wikipedia editors like yourselves; perhaps one or two of you may have suggestions on how to improve such descriptions.) Her books meet the notability criteria, having been reviewed and discussed in major media. In fact, Benson is a native of the UK, and both her books have been reviewed/discussed in the TLS, which even Wikipedia acknowledges as "one of the world's preeminent critical publications." (The second review appears in the October 20, 2006 issue, and is not yet directly cited online.)Benson's two books may be only available through such obscure retailers as Amazon.com   and Barnes & Noble , and the relevant pages give samples of reviews and indicate the caliber of Benson's audience. Now I recognize that article deletion is a holy and privileged activity, and that deletion of articles about women whose claims to notability don't involve performances emphasizing, flaunting, or exposing their mammaries is a virtual sacrament which shouldn't be disrupted or contested, however ridiculous or inaccurate the basis, unless the circumstances are really really unusual. But while one of England's "leading cultural critics" is apparently not, by Wikipedia editor consensus, as notable as  a moderately obese middle-aged woman who films herself having sex with dogs, and the TLS is apparently by the same consensus not a "major" publication with the stature and reputation of Color Climax Anal Sex or Big Fuckin' Tits, or even Juggs, I think she deserves to be included in Wikipedia.I now realize that the excessive literacy and cultural awareness I displayed in recognizing the name of a well-known figure in the British academic-philosophical-literary world is inconsitent with the qualities required of a good Wikipedian, and fully justifies the assumptions of bad faith you have all made. I now know that in-depth knowledge of any subjects outside of pornography, Pokemon, and professional sports can only damage the Wikipedian enterprise, and I will do my best in the future to follow your lead and to contribute only with regard to subjects about which I know nothing, or next to nothing.Now (dropping the ironic stance) I deserve a public apology from each of the posters whose sloth, carelessness, malice, or incompetence led them to make unfounded, uncivil, derogatory comments about me (and about the entirely blamess Ms Benson). And I deserve a display of abject, public, unqualified self-execration from the ArbCom member who charged to the head of the attack. I expect, of course, nothing but renewed incivility, personal attacks, and evasion of responsibility.--VivianDarkbloom 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all above. (Ranting about the "incompetence" of editors who disagree with you doesn't exactly help one's case.) wikipediatrix 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Better ranting than than lying. Exactly why do you think it's OK to falsely claim that a published author whose books are reviewed in her native UK's most-respect literary journal has never published anything outside of hew own blog, or that there is no "evidence that the world has taken note of this person"? VivianDarkbloom 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how this works. If you have new information about Benson that is properly sourced, put it in the article. In the time it took you to rant and froth and lash out at everyone, you could have been improving the article. I've seen many an article saved from deletion by improving it, but I've never seen one saved by accusing everyone else of "sloth, malice, and incompetence." wikipediatrix 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've argued with Wikiapedrix before, but am newly impressed with her neutrality. Putting on my thinking cap for a moment, I'm reminded of the UK's most prestigious literary journals, comprising Granta, the London Review of Books, etc. 1) Please don't leave angry jeremiads on my talk page unless you have personal Wiki-business to discuss with me. 2) Having mentioned this literary journal, would you please identify and/or provide a cite to it? Auto movil 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I identified the journal as the TLS already, I gave the date of the most recent review above, and I gave links to bookseller which quote reviews from the TLS and other sources. What else do you want? You ought to be more concerned about the half-dozen editors above who are perfectly willing to misrepresent simple facts, either through malice or negligence, and thereby damage Wikipedia that about an editor whose willingness to be blunt when bluntness is called for ruffles your sensibilities. Read the article on Benson. See if any of the "delete" comments actually line up with the contents of the article. Then decide who's playing inside the lines. VivianDarkbloom 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve Obviously, being reviewed in TLS establishes notability. Now, Ms. Darkbloom, why don't you add this information to the article to clarify why the author is notable, perhaps with helpful links to the reviews? After all, it is not enough to merely be notable, the article has to establish why you're notable. Right now, the article reads like "blogger who happened to write these books." –Joke 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (many colon marks) As per the above. Please, now, include a citation to the TLS. It is a respected journal; now it's necessary to establish that it covered the author in question. Auto movil 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - NN, not established in article, unsourced... I could go on. - Crockspot 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse previous speedy delete - I've looked at the article again, in response to a request made on my talk page. I still have the same opinion, the "improvements" not being much. - Crockspot 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - subject is the author of two legitimate, recently published books of both scholarly and popular importance. The stubby article can use (and in due course will presumably receive) expansion and improvement, but there is nothing in the interim requiring deletion. As a side comment, "bluntness" should be welcome here, but comments like "ban the nominator" (or for that matter "censure another commentator") are unnecessary; this does not, however, affect the result. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please refer to the current version of the article for several reviews which sufficiently establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Announcement - TruthbringerToronto, you just left a message on the talk pages of everyone who has voted 'delete' on this article, asking that they reconsider their votes. I'm going to ask directly whether you're the same person as Vivian Darkbloom. Please answer yes or no. Auto movil 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. I just think it would be a pity if !votes were recorded based on a prior version of the article when the current version is better and (in my view) demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there has been much improper campaigning already. I am determined to vote for or against this VfD on the merits of the article. I do not appreciate being insulted and lobbied on my talk page. I expressed this earlier. Please do not do that. Auto movil 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment TbT is himself, and I do not believe he is in any way related to VDB. He obviously felt passionately that articles are not deleted based on insufficient info, and may have overstepped the mark, but he is sincere. Ohconfucius 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment On reviewing the sources added to the article, I've changed my vote to Keep despite the efforts of VivianDarkbloom at improper campaigning. I intend no disrespect when I say that I hope and expect never to hear from this user again. Auto movil 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I submit (as a general matter, not directed to anyone in particular) that perceived incivility or impropriety should not be responded to in kind. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad is advised to look on Auto movil's talk page before expressing such an otherwise admirable sentiment. Auto movil 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the same message on another's commenter's page and noted there that Vivian Darkbloom should tone down her rhetoric significantly and that the apparent imputation of sexism to the delete commenters was particularly unwarranted. I had forgotten that I wrote that on a userpage and not this page, else I would have included that comment as well here, which I now do. Newyorkbrad 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. My remarks concern only VivianDarkbloom, who has engaged in what are usually considered blatant personal attacks, in the process of attempting to influence a VfD. This is not acceptable behavior. Auto movil 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think everyone needs some special herbs around here. With the changes made to the article, notability is established and warrants inclusion. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm just going to weigh in once more here, after having been called to this VfD by a gigantic bolus of angry ranting on my talk page. Scenario: Person A tries to get their way by throwing a nasty screaming tantrum. Person B responds like, "What the...? Jeez, cut that out!" Now, this is life, and having been involved in life for awhile, I've noticed something: Whenever the above scenario plays out, there's always a Person C who comes around a liitle while later, all like, "Dudes! Everyone needs to chill out here." To which I say, right now, that the advice is appreciated but misapplied. One person here needs guidance, and it's not hard to determine which person it is, in order to apply it. Auto movil 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable webmaster. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 01:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that notability has been expanded on. Mango juice talk 05:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a result of changes to article, continue to expand. Yamaguchi先生 06:43, 1 November 2006
 * Keep. Published author of notable works. --Gamaliel 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In light of new developments, I've changed my above vote to Keep. See how simple it is when you simply improve the article? wikipediatrix 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although her books do not have very high rankings in Amazon.com, they have been reviewed by multiple reputable journals, thus fulfilling inclusion criteria. BTW, Amazon.co.uk ranking of 13,107th. Ohconfucius 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse listing. Even improved as it has been, the page is still shockingly vague about her.  And censure VivianDarkbloom for personal attacks.  There's nothing wrong with using an anon or single purpose account for listing an AFD, or even for commenting in one.  (Remember, AFD is not a vote.)  Oh, and Keep.  The books seem to make her (just) notable.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:02, 2 November 2006 (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.