Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Carpenter (Writer and pirate radio personality)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sue Carpenter (Writer and pirate radio personality)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article should be retained. Quoting Jimbo Wales again, with emphasis added by me - "fame and importance are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the Yes vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, Qubit Field Theory -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Historical/Fame_and_importance. Cohee (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Rather than creating a strawman argument, I suggest we focus on developing the adequacy of the article by finding valid references. The article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO by failing to provide non-trivial verifiable, independent resources.  Yes,  the article has resources; however, the first might be one that could be used for the book; the second is a trivial listing for the book; and the third is not about her, but only quotes her a couple of times.  This I am afraid is trivial coverage at best.


 * If you want the article to survive the AfD, then provide references that better support the article. You have indicated she is known for operating "pirate radio stations."   Are there no articles of substance written about her?  It does not have to be in mainstream media, underground works are acceptable, as are electronic such as websites, as long as they are verifiable, independent resources.  red dog six  (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Nobody needs to invoke the name of Jimbo. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Her book is selling brisking on Amazon and has several editorial reviews. E. Pustuale Johnson (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BARE - she appears to be notable enough. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We have WP:RS that provide significant coverage. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2013 (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.