Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Beach Jacobson


 * 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. W.marsh 00:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Roberta Beach Jacobson


Article does not assert or document notability of subject sufficient to meet test of WP:Bio SteveHopson 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Article is not yet finished, additionally I am working on a list of about 30 books she either edited or collaborated on, some of them featured in Articles with her name in Wiklipedia. It will take a little longer to get all ISBN numbers together. rough 21:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now). Generally, giving an article less than four hours (especially when it is obviously being worked on) before nominating it for deletion is bad form. Caknuck 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to Caknuck: Please check the logs before concluding 'bad form.' The article was actually created on Nov 12 and Speedily Deleted on that day.  My decision to nominate for deletion was to give the article the benefit of a longer discussion period.  The article was also not 'obviously being worked on' as the only changes since inception were minor in nature.  SteveHopson 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This appeared to be a bad faith nom b/c it was you who speedied the first instance of the article, and then AfD'ed it right after it was recreated. (The logs don't reflect Rough's request.) I was concerned that your quick trigger on the AfD, along with your nomination of another one of Rough's articles (Kafenio) was verging on "beating up the new editor". If I got the wrong impression, then I apologize. Caknuck 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for deletion because I did not think the subject is notable. Because the article is a recreation of a previously deleted one, it was eligible for Speedy Delete, but I submitted for AfD to give it the benefit a full discussion.  I resent your accusation and the facts that your comments make this a personal discussion, rather than a discussion of the merits of the article.  Yes, Caknuck, you got it wrong and owe me an apology. SteveHopson 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to SteveHobson: The version of Nov 12 was speedily deleted, and I asked for deletion because I could not produce more than a stub, which-as I learned is uncool around here (Then again, I think it was the Nov 13, on the 12 I was travelling)The new version was exactly 4 hours old when the deletion note flashed. Rough 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many articles in Wikipedia that are even stubbier than this one.  69.140.173.15 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I am not finished I think the article shows that the subject IS notable. Rough 21:57, 27 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.