Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb


 * 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. (WP:SNOW). Despite the few guideline-based delete !votes, consensus herein is very strong that the subject passes various notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ENT). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

a user User:TheRedPenOfDoom is repeatedly adding not notable to the story - the subject is imo borderline notable and the article and talk is borderline attacking now and deletion is a good position for the person - Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article was nominated without a template. Just fixed it. This is Paul (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject has made several contributions to literature, television, print media, etc, which would be fine for an encyclopedia article. There are other issues going on with this page, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. I'm not sure about the rationale for nominating this, and can't help thinking it's all just part of the ongoing dispute involving this topic. This is Paul (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you expand upon where you are seeing significant coverage in third party sources? We have the schools that she teaches at and the channels that produced/broadcast the TV shows that she appeared in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, here's a few references discussing Lipscomb and her work,, , , , , , and last but not least this one, which describes her as "award-winning academic, author and historian Dr Suzannah Lipscomb". I found most of these within five minutes of searching, but I'm sure a more in depth Google search would shed light on those awards. This is Paul (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * its pretty obvious that it was a quick search because there is a distinct lack of content about the subject of the article by third parties in any of them. There are promotional blurbs where she repeats the content of the shows/her books. There is an essay that she wrote about why she chose to work at a small school over a large school, one of the others she is not mentioned at all, it is just a sidebar link back to her essay. one she is quoted briefly from her essay. etc. Yes, she may be a "go to" talking head for a quick quote, but that does not establish notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete - does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENTERTAINER. The minor contributions to writing or television have not been covered by third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Changing to keep based on the reviews that Voceditenore found showing that she does meet WP:ENT. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references provide ample evidence that she exists, but little that she is notable. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * person gets very good returns from search engines - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Suzannah+Lipscomb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PgV5U5jpG-bR8gfEp4GQAw - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * see WP:GHITS - we require coverage in reliably published sources and so you if you find any in that search result, please bring forth any specific ones. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes please delete it if Wiki are unable to control negative contributors, such as User:TheRedPenOfDoom who keep messing the facts around such that this page is now but a shadow of the truth, although I imagine that his purpose in being so destructive is to make deletion a possibility. The current version has no references to higher qualifications although ample evidence has been shown and which must be obvious when one considers the subject's activities. Many other things too have been removed. It seems that Wikipedia is unable to maintain the truth. Removal would be preferable to this shadow of the facts pertaining to the subject, which was originally submitted to Wikipeia by the subject's employer, New College of the Humanities.MdeBohun (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sorry to intervene but the word "negative" is negative, not that user.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "is now but a shadow of the truth, " from the person who is adamant that the marriage not be mentioned! ROFLMFAO!!! "truth" seeker indeed!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The user TheRedPenOfDoom should continue to be blocked from editing this page as it is clear from his comments above that he is a one track pony, only concerned with the subject's marriage status, which is married / separated / getting divorced. It's fine to mention the marriage so long as the latest situation is included, but that's not his purpose. There are other awards than those currently shown that have been removed, e.g. 'In 2011, she was awarded a public engagement grant (People Award) from the Wellcome Trust to fund ‘All the King’s Fools’, a performance project in which actors with learning disabilities played the Tudor period’s ‘natural fools’ at Hampton Court Palace, which won a 2012 Museums + Heritage Award for Excellence. and 'In 2012, she was awarded the Nancy Roelker Prize by the Sixteenth Century Society for her journal article, ‘Crossing Boundaries: Women’s Gossip, Insults and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France’ in French History (Vol 25, No. 4)' - See more at:.
 * One track pony?! Have you looked at his contribution record? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For some reason somebody is aiming to undermine the subject by removing references to her doctorate but leaving her high school. Removing awards, but insisting upon marriage status. Users with no agenda, such as as This is Paul should be asked to sort out this mess. The subject never asked for a Wikipedia page and would prefer not to have one if it is constantly sabotaged by others removing relevant facts.MdeBohun (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I didnt bring up the marriage until you started going on about how the article doesnt reflect the "truth". The facts are clear that you dont actually care about "the truth" - only about the parts of "the truth" that the subject of the article wants to include. WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST - we dont do that. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no reason not to mention a previous marriage, so long as the latest situation is included, ie separated and getting divorced. That is truth, I think it is clear that TheRedPenofDoom is childishly majoring on a very minor aspect of the page and has thus jeopardised it's existence. His aggressive style is that of the ex-husband.MdeBohun (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What has "jeopardised" the page's existence is the fact that there is a grand lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. In terms of notability, I believe she meets the guidelines (as stated above), but if the subject herself is unhappy with having a Wikipedia page then that must be considered, and I would support her wish. I believe there is a process by which someone can ask to have a page about them deleted (I've seen it happen a couple of times). I believe Suzannah Lipscomb would have to contact Wikipedia herself to get the ball rolling, but maybe someone can refresh my memory about what has to be done. In the event the article is kept I'd be happy to do what I can to tidy it up and add it to my watchlist, but my concern would be the disagreement over what should and shouldn't be included may continue. It seems to kick off every time she appears on TV at present. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * while it would not guarantee deletion, Lipscomb could use the WP:OTRS system to identify herself and make her wishes known. In cases like this of marginal notability, the users wish to be off wiki will often be taken into consideration by !voters and the admin determining the consensus. Note the the subject cannot be "I dont want the current version, but I do want one where I approve and like all of the content."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Received coverage from Dailymail, History Today, Telegraph.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG requires coverage in reliable sources. so that tosses the Daily Mail out. The Telegraph if you are talking about is not at all about Lipscomb- its a promo blurb for a TV show and she is mentioned as having a role in it. There is no History Today in the article or in this page that I can see. Can you link to it? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , .  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and the History Today links are to articles that she has written, not to any significant content about her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Of course this page should be kept. Suzannah Lipscomb is an eminent historian. I have viewed her page before and wondered at the changes, why are her qualifications, awards and TV programmes removed, and I agree that it looks as if it is being targeted by somebody with an agenda against her. In her position I am sure she would wish to have a Wikipedia page if it did not keep being damaged, one that reflected the facts of her life. I do not see what is wrong with the reference above to History Today, it seems to show many articles written by Suzannah Lipscomb for that magazine. The stats show 2,500+ viewings from time-to-time, which surely means she is of interest.Kinabalu14 (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Kinabalu14 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia and its Articles for Deletion page. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "eminent " historians would be widely cited in the academic literature. there is no evidence that she is. popular historians would have their works reviewed in the popular press, there is no evidence that hers have been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: A high-profile author and broadcaster. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why am I the only contributor who has not been WP:BLUDGEONed by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ? . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe because you didnt even attempt to make a policy based argument. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Highly acceptable in the UK and around the world for her works in history. Most of her achievements has been removed from her page. Daan0001 (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * most of her works have not been documented by reliable sources, which is wikipedia's standard for establishing notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore has now found and provided third party coverage of several of the entertainment shows. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone else think there's an element of WP:BLUDGEON starting to creep into this discussion? This is Paul (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is more than an element of WP:BLUDGEON in this discussion, the whole discussion is interspersed with insidious comments to diminish the subject. I now intend to report this a WP:BULLYING, to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard as one contributor on here wants to 'give the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large.'MdeBohun (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — MdeBohun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Weak keep - the subject has appeared on several documentary TV shows, including BBC Four and National Geographic, which would allow her to pass WP:NACTOR alone, although she fails WP:PROF . Even assuming her life has been covered in the Daily Mirror, a mention in a non-reliable source does not taint an otherwise notable person (see Woody Allen and Paloma Picasso in the New York Post). I'm leaning to a keep, but would prefer better sourcing about the subject. Userfication is another option. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing based on sources and discussion below. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: I fail to see why Dr. Lipscomb's page should be deleted. She lectures on history extensively, e.g. Chalke Valley History Festival, the BBC History magazine history weekend at Malmesbury, both this year and last year, and in 2009 she toured American universities lecturing. I have found one example, and there are more. I can't imagine why this page is being considered for deletion.Wrecklesham (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Wrecklesham (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Of course I have made no comments about anybody else, I just made an account to comment on this travesty, about which I felt strongly. This doesn't make my opinion any weaker than anyone else's.Wrecklesham (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Source


 * Help required to improve this story - this is all that is being allowed in about her education by the User:TheRedPenOfDoom repeatedly removing details claiming there is some 'consensus' that Lipscomb is not a reliable source about herself;


 * Lipscomb was educated at Nonsuch High School for Girls. She is a governor at Epsom


 * This is her actual education history - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=608342822&oldid=608342536


 * Lipscomb was educated at Nonsuch High School for Girls,[1] and at Epsom College,[1] where she is now a governor.[2] She then attended Lincoln College at the University of Oxford where she was awarded a double first class honours degree in Modern History and a Masters in Historical Research.[3] See page 34[4] She then won the Jowett Senior Scholarship to Balliol College, University of Oxford, from where she was awarded a doctorate in history.[5] Her doctoral supervisor was Robin Briggs, All Souls College, University of Oxford.[6][7]


 * If the article is not to more honestly be allowed to report her actual status then please move to deletion. Can you not see how demeaning and attacking it is to create a story about someone so qualified and yet only report such trivialities? Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof on GS cites, an h-index of 3!. Does not make WP:GNG yet as a pop history presenter. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Strong Keep: This is an easy one. Dr. Lipscomb's page should be kept and corrected to the way it was before all of the deletions. She lectures on history all over the World. I can't fathom why this page is being considered for deletion. She is also a well know TV presenter and this plus many others. In addition a published author She is an academic/author/presenter of tremendous repute. I read all of the opinions above and I find this to be a case of this person being of a WP:BLUDGEON bordering on WP:BULLYING She obviously has impeccable credentials.Thewho515 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Thewho515 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Primarily because the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER Criterion 1 (has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions) by virtue of having been the presenter of multiple television series/programs for notable British broadcasting companies, BBC, ITV, Channel 5 (plus the National Geographic Channel) I have included references to reviews (not simple TV listings) for three of these programs in The Independent and Daily Telegraph. The Clive James review in the Daily Telegraph devotes at least a paragraph to her. I have also included as a reference an article devoted to her—not just an interview—in the Oxford Times which verifies a fair amount of the biographical information. She could even pass WP:PROF Criterion 3 (is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association) via her election as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and Criterion 7 (has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, e.g. if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area). There is ample evidence of this, the dismissive description of her as "the go-to person" in the popular press above merely supports this. Note also that the specialised criteria at WP:PROF and WP:ENTERTAINER are alternatives to passing WP:GNG and only require one of the criteria to be met—not all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that the contributor above has been canvassed on his talk-page by an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
 * MdeBohun commented on my talk page about things he/she wanted added to the article over an hour after I had begun editing the article . This discussion at ANI was the reason I began editing the article and evaluating whether it should be kept or not. As for MdeBohun's suggestions of what to add, I implemented none of them because they were all inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To the rather large number of single purpose new accounts showing up here to !vote "keep", you are actually harming the chances of this article of being kept by flooding this page with walls of text, inappropriate personalised arguments directed at other editors, and unsuitable sources, which clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding whatsoever of the inclusion criteria Wikipedia uses, nor what is considered a reliable source. Your !votes will be discounted. To those experienced editors who are !voting "delete", please ignore the presence and commentary of these SPAs (and the editor with a clear conflict of interest) and evaluate the arguments for keeping or deleting this article dispassionately and objectively. I know, it's hard to do when you're being unfairly accused of bludgeoning and bullying and faced with these walls of text from the SPAs, but do it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I was canvassed about this issue last night, but had already made my thoughts known here before that. I'll withdraw from the debate, but will just say the way this discussion is being conducted is very unhelpful. Also, I made reference to WP:BLUDGEON because there's no need for editors to respond to every comment with which they disagree, which is what appeared to be happening when I posted the comment. This is Paul (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will stand behind my asking for people to provide specifics and evidence to back up generalities. particularly when as happened a number of times in this discussion, the specifics and evidence show that the initial generality is not actually supported.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. But should be renamed "How Not To Edit Your Daughter's / Mothers / BFF's / Granddaughter's / Neice's Wiki Page." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - presenter of four separate national tv programmes? Of course she's notable. --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. MdeBohun who has admitted to being a relative of the subject is trying to dictate what can and cannot be added. This is not a promotional space. (Lw1982 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)) — Lw1982 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment We don't delete articles because an SPA has edited them. --NellieBly (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. She's not a major academic, but her career as a TV presenter combined with her academic profile make her notable enough. For some reason this article has descended into a quagmire of deletions and restorations of content, for which, IMO, several editors are to blame, with childish tit-for-tat deletions and weird additions of odd content. All this is clearly related to some sort of acrimonious dispute between parties outside Wikipedia, but it's resulted in a very ugly mess. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-known notable TV presenter. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG handily. --NellieBly (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Certainly a fair number of the sources are underwhelming in how much coverage they give the subject, but they are easily numerous and substantial enough on the whole that the article passes GNG, and BIO considerations, with ease.  The article has issues, but they can be resolved with a little time and patience and a more collaborative approach.  S n o w  talk 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, and discipline edit warriors. This appears to be a bad faith nomination. The subject has written notable books and curated exhibits at visible venues; she easily passes GNG and BLP, AUTHOR and AC.  Detractors seem intent on defacing the page which is not helpful to the project. Possibly Speedy Keep though this is headed for a snow close anyway. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable TV presenter. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject meets notability requirements for stand alone article. Nomination is flawed for it seeks deletion in preference to the articles published content, to wit: not liking it is not a valid reason to delete; WP:SOFIXIT applies—a strong collaboration is currently in progress, to that end! In my opinion, a snow close is warranted.—John Cline (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not convinced that FRHistSoc is enough for WP:PROF — their eligibility requirements look like you only need to be a published history author for that, rather than the more distinguished academic level that criterion is looking for. But the multiple in-depth published reviews of her television and book works are enough for WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be interested to know where David Eppstein (talk) found the information that says that the Royal Historical Society makes Fellows only on the basis of them being published history authors as I couldn't find the criteria on their website? MdeBohun (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Not notable under WP:PROF, just as David E says, but notable under both WP:CREATIVE and the GNG. The inherent quality of the work is irrelevant to WP:CREATIVE, and very certainly not to the GNG, just that it be widely read and commented on.  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability has been established. -- Neil N  talk to me  12:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not notable as an historian, but clearly notable as an entertainer for the middle-brow, middle-income middle classes. RomanSpa (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2014 (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.