Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Roland Shearer


 * 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.  So Why  17:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhonda Roland Shearer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has multiple issues including Notability, BLP, Neutrality, Lack of secondary sources (many of the cites are on sites that the subject controls. MrsMickie (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I have many issues with this page.

It seems self promotional in tone. It contains original research. Many of the citations link to sites and.or articles either authored by or connected to the subject and not not independent or secondary. Does not meet BLP standards. Her only real notability is that she is the widow of Stephen Jay Gould.

MrsMickie (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Adequate indicia of notability independent of her spouse.  Article needs work on tone, but that's not what AfD is about.   Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There's loads of info about her behind paywalls that I can't access, but you can see the cites on Newspapers.com and EBSCOhost. I've added what I do have access to and what I have time to get to today. I agree with that the article needs a rewrite, but the subject is clearly notable and passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to be originally created at the request of the subject.  Notability is borderline, many of the cites I saw were subjects own websites, or related to a 9/11 event that isn't directly related to her being worthy of encyclopedic entry.  The article itself is a self promotional hot mess and would need to be completely rewritten not only for tone but for promotional context. Better to delete and start over that work from an article that shouldn't have been created in the first place  TarHealer (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is disjointed, self promotional.  Checking the links the majority redirect to her own site. At first I was going to suggest a keep and work on the article, but after I started looking at it I changed my mind.  Delete per the nomination or fail notability journalist, artist.. Let someone not connected to the source  create a new and proper entry. Maugster (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The tone issues can be fixed through normal editing. There's plenty of coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2017 (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.