Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalind Franklin, author


 * 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 userfy as self-evident autobiography. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin, author

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The primary author of this article appears to be the subject, so there is a big WP:COI. Also, reads like a puff piece/resume. There are no sources cited. WP:BIO is questionable, but not the primary concern. Andrew c 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It sould be noted that Diggory Press, with which the subject is associated, is currently the topic of an AfD as well. Deor 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's see here...WP:COI issues (article creator is the subject), Wikipedia is not an autobiography, puff piece, , and no reliable sources -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Please read WP:COI and stop using COI as reason for deletion--it's not: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."  Please, stick with legitimate reasons to delete an article, then post them, not extraneous issues.  Read the policy is you have questions.  KP Botany 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe you should read WP:COI. It states very clearly that you probably should not edit an article if you have COI issues.  Creating an article not withstanding.  Please try to defend the article with my WP:RS and WP:NOT please?  -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And somehow you translate "probably should not edit an article if you have COI issues" to "reason for deletion?" All I ask is that you NOT use reasons for deletion that are NOT reasons for deletion.  Try it some time.  And, please, I suggest you reread COI if you think that "should not edit" is the same as "reason for deletion" and find the line I quoted above--"not a reason for deletion."  I do agree that if you have a COI you shouldn't edit the article, mostly, because people write like crap when writing about themselves, and WP:COI fails to say this, but should.  Stick to legitimate reasons for deletion in your nomination, please. KP Botany 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that there is no reason for anyone to create an article about themselves. If they meet WP:BIO, then at some point in the future, they will most likely be included. I do not believe that we need a policy stating that someone cannot create an article about themselves, but it is already implied that that sort of behavior is at least discouraged. I feel that COI isn't a reason alone to delete, either, but it helps the case. If you disagree with the my belief that COI should be weighed along side other issues, then feel free to ignore COI concerns. I apologize if my nomination sounded like COI was my only concern with the article. Look at the article yourself, weigh it against your understanding of wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and comment accordingly here. I didn't want this to turn into a discussion on COI, but instead, a discussion on whether we should include this article in our online encyclopedia. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But it will turn into a discussion on COI if you use it as a reason to delete, when the policy clearly states that COI is NOT a reason to delete. Simply leave it out.  Again, I agree COI generally means really crappy article.  Look at the garbage the Virtual synchrony guy is putting up--and it's not just this one piece of utterly worthless, poorly written, unclear, crap--it's a couple.  But I'm tired of the deletionists nominating articles for reasons that aren't reasons.  COI is not a reason for deletion.  The lists for deletion have user accounts whose only purpose is voting for deletion.  A user vandalized the Andrew Airlie article, then nominated it for deletion based upon the article missing what he had just deleted!  This area is out of control--nominate for legitimate reasons.  If it fails notability, then it should be deleted.  If it fails COI, tag it.  KP Botany 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Policy smolicy. Give me an hour and I could have 100 different AfD's that were nominated for deletion that weren't "policy".  There are TONS of things that aren't policy. WP:Crystal Ball and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are just 2, however, articles are deleted for those all the freaking time.  Personally, a WP:COI issue is much worse than WP:Crystal Ball and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because usually it's ridden with bias and does not adhere to a WP:NPOV.  Furthermore, this article has basically been edited by NO ONE other than the subject in question anyways, which means there is not an older version to revert to, or anything.  Regardless of the WP:COI, let's both leave this out for a second.  The article still fails WP:NOT and WP:RS so it will be deleted anyways.  However when I look at this, I weigh the COI on top of everything else, which just enforces my vote for deletion. -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless independent and non-trivial reliable sources can be found to substantiate her notability. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, searching Google News Archive for rosalind.franklin+cornwall and rosalind.franklin+diggory yields nada. Unlikely to meet WP:RS. WP:COI, in my book, is a pebble to be placed on a scale when it's nearly balanced. The nomination was not the most well-reasoned it could have been, but that doesn't mean we can't proceed on the basis of a good-faith, if fuzzy, nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been online for exactly four days, and has requested references or sources for four days. Not saying it should be deleted or kept, but do think that articles should be given a leetle more time with a unreferenced template to allow the digging up of sources first.  Will it fail on WP:N and WP:RS grounds?  Possibly, and I share the WP:COI concerns when there are so few verified sources.  But maybe her or others will polish it while it's in AfD.  Laughing Vulcan  02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - no the sources should come first. Four hours should be plenty of time to write a sourced article, never mind four days. - fchd 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Notability: lack of reliable sources. Moreschi Talk 18:59, 15 June 2007 (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.