Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Rough consensus is to delete. Let it be noted that library holdings can be an indication of notability, and low holdings are probably not an argument for notability. Being cited and mentioned is probably an argument for likely notability, but in the end it's reliable sources providing significant discussion that proves notability--and editors here agree broadly that this is missing. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Pynchon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The last articles for deletion was a disaster due to an outside group on a crusade against this person. But looking at it, it probably would have been deleted. I don't see any plausible way she can be notable, certainly not her blog. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN.  Pynchon is no doubt a competent professional, but that is not the same thing as meeting WP:GNG.  Things like "appearing on The Marketplace's The Morning Report" to comment on an issue shows she is competent, but are not coverage showing notability.  There are no substantive claims showing notability supported by sources.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My conclusion is the same as last time: weak delete. She has a few passing mentions in Independent Reliable Sources, but most of the rest of the references are self-referential. In a search I found one additional source but "Bizwomen" does not seem like much of a source. Things written by her do not count; we need things written ABOUT her by third parties, and those seem to be lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient reliable sources referencing or discussing her to pass WP:N. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Amended comment: As noted by Ravenswing, when a subject is discussed in significant detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources, the GNG standard is met, which is the case with the subject of this article. And Milowent's description -- "that Los Angeles Daily Journal thing is not a regional publication but a local legal newspaper which did a puff biz piece on her which she republished everywhere" -- does not make it so. It was a profile in a reliable newspaper and appears to have been written by a staff writer. Does the subject of an article, by republishing it elsewhere, diminish the original content and make it not count toward GNG? Original comment: In a search, I found three sources not included in the article and added them. One is an interview with Pynchon (about her) in a legal periodical. The second one is an annual conference of the New York Bar Association where she was keynote speaker. The third is a listing by Rasmussen College of the Top 100 Academic Law Twitter Feeds in 2010, which includes Pynchon. These are substantive claims that show notability --AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: For some reason, my "Keep" appears as "Delete" in the AfD Vote Counter. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently the vote counter doesn't trust your vote!! :-)  Seriously though, those sources are not good indicia of notability.  Where are the regional newspaper spreads on her?  Typically two in-depth profiles of someone in a national or regional mainstream publication is a good case for notability.  One you get below that the Afds go from borderline to worse.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good one ref: the vote counter! :-) Is not multiple coverage by reliable national and regional newspapers and news outlets (CNN, Wall Street Journal, NPR, Newsday, San Diego Union Tribune, Parade magazine, etc.) equal to a couple of profiles of a person to show notability? A profile was done by the Los Angeles Daily Journal, which is considered a regional publication, and a periodical did a profile. I have seen that similarly discussed in other AfDs and those articles with multiple coverage without profiles have passed GNG. The nom saying the article "probably would have been deleted" the first time is not a valid reason for deletion. We do not know that, especially given so many of the Delete votes were a result of the outside crusade to have the page deleted. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very very weak keep The references in this article need work. Many of them do not link to the article being referenced, but to the Wikipedia page for the journal. (I think there's a misunderstanding about the citation format by some contributor(s)). Without that cleanup it's hard to know what's going on here. In some cases, I was unable to find the article being referenced. I fixed a few, and made notes on another. I would say that this is a notability edge case, but with improvements to the references it could be turned around. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I searched and found that her blog postings for her site are included in the Library of Congress' archive of legal blogs so I added it to the article with a source. I also found a Fox Business News segment of The Willis Report, where she was the only person interviewed and I added that, along with two back-to-back appearances on Minnesota Public Radio during the state's 2011 budget hearings to discuss negotiations. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, I'm not sure that adds much -- Library of Congress archives whole periods of the full twitter feed, so it's not a huge sign of significance. I'd rather see more references in reliable publications. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Fox Business News segment adds a reliable news outlet to the mix. Will see what else I can find. Thanks. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Off topic: Could someone edit my "Keep" (above) so it does not continue to register as "Delete" on the Stats vote counter? Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted that six months ago (two years after the 1st AfD), AutoAdmit wrote on its page about getting Pynchon's Wikipedia article deleted, "lets get this going again!" It is dated April 10, 2014. Here's the link (scroll to bottom). Stumbled on it during a Google search. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you displaying such zeal in this AFD, Author? I think you are demonstrating she is not notable by noting items like a Library of Congress archive of a twitter feed.  And that Los Angeles Daily Journal thing is not a regional publication but a local legal newspaper which did a puff biz piece on her which she republished everywhere.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After the last afd on this article, I remember some of the other contributors voicing a suspicion that this was paid editing on the part of AuthorAuthor, and the behavioral indicators all seem to support this. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that by attempting to address the issues raised at AfD, it is considered "zeal." In Wikipedia discussions, I have voiced my opposition to anyone being paid to edit and/or create articles on Wikipedia. I have not received payment for this or any other Wikipedia article. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone shows zeal to this extent there is a reason; I know this from participating in at least 1000 AfDs. I don't mean its some bad reason, and surely wasn't thinking of paid editing, I was just wondering.  I just assumed you know Victoria, but its no big deal.  I often show great zeal in preventing articles from being deleted because I'm an inclusionist, and I've gotten flack for it; but I also agree with the purposes and spirit of WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Similar questions can arise when there is zeal about an article being deleted in light of a current post from a controversial group soliciting help in getting it done. And I certainly hope I do not get criticized for mentioning the elephant in the room.-AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, the subject has received passing mention in a multitude of non-primary or secondary reliable sources, the subject has also authored or co-authored multiple pieces of journalism and a few papers. That being said there do not appear to be multiple reliable sources, where the subject of this AfD is the primary topic, and where the subject of this article is given significant coverage, thus not passing WP:GNG. Furthermore, since the last AfD, the subject does not appear to have added significant amounts of academic work, or meet any other the criteria set forth in WP:NACADEMICS. The only possible route for notability, that I can see is WP:JOURNALIST, criteria #1, but I have not yet been convinced that the subject of this AfD is a "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Therefore, at this time, it is my opinion that the subject does not yet meet a guideline for notability, and thus the article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability, self promotion as well--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Recognized expert on mediation, office politics and bargaining in the workplace, her views are quoted often by reliable sources, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here. She was described by NPR as an expert. She's picked up by international papers such as the Guardian. She contributes regularly as a writer for Forbes such as here. While I agree there are problems with the current article (poor sourcing, BLP issues, promotional cruft) these problems are not reasons for deletion when there are so many sources available. If the article is kept here, I will try to revamp it when I have time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is every "expert" in every field notable? Of course not. There are millions of "expert" attorneys.  She's simply competent in her field, yet there is precious little coverage about her as a notable person.  When was she born?  None of her biographical information is sourceable to news sources, this makes her bio ripe for vandalism.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Spurious arguments; simply, she's notable. First, the "she's simply competent in her field" argument: not merely "simply competent" but her expertise is quoted in numerous reliable sources, again and again (see above); if there are "millions" of experts in the field of mediation, how come Victoria Pynchon is the one who is quoted in Forbes? Or, why was she chosen by Wiley Publishers to co-author a book on Mediation Styles? Or that her reports in Forbes get picked up by Mac Observer magazine here? Or, that she is a guest on Minnesota Public Radio? Or her views are extensively quoted in BusinessWeek magazine? Because she's notable. Second, your "none of her biographical information is sourceable to news sources" argument is a head-scratcher -- since when is this a test of notability? Personally, who cares when she was born, or her shoe size, or her preference for colors of drapes -- what matters is her advice about workplace issues, such as legal secretaries jostling in the power hierarchy or about networking, and coverage is plenty sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Third, your "precious little coverage about her as a notable person" argument is incorrect since what is interesting is not who she is but what she does (which is notable) such as help working women negotiate for better pay. She meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yours is essentially the spurious argument, completely backwards, in fact. Forbes, Wiley, Minnesota Public Radio, etc., did not carry VP because she was notable, but because they felt her work would suit part of their respective audiences.  The question for us is whether this resume, so to speak, satisfies WP:GNG.  You are correct that covering VP the person is not a requirement.  When that kind of WP:RS coverage happens, that usually is because WP:GNG is met.  But we do not have to wait for MSM to decide for us. Choor monster (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Forays into the metaphysics of sourcing -- why Forbes and Wiley and Minnesota Public Radio publish her views -- is off topic. Simply put, Victoria Pynchon is notable as an expert regarding negotiating strategies, advice for workers, mediation. I agree the current article looks very much like a resume, but the question should be, Is this subject notable?, and she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: There is a curious notion floating around AfD in recent months that it somehow matters why or how someone's attracted media attention. This bizarre theory is unsupported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. The GNG just requires that a subject be covered in significant detail in multiple, reliable, published sources; it neither requires that subjects must then go forward to meet some amorphous "I think it's important enough" bar, nor that a subject also pass a subordinate notability criterion. Meeting the GNG is quite enough, and as Tomwsulcer correctly states, it doesn't matter worth a tinker's damn why Forbes or NPR think her views are important.   Ravenswing   01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment: the subject's publications themselves do not count towards "covering the subject", although we might glean personal information from such sources. Tomwsulcer was originally claiming that Forbes ' s reasons for publishing VP included "VP is notable!", which we do not know, and as you indicate, do not care about either.  Note that publications and appearances typically include comments about other work, eg, a TV appearance might be prefaced by a brief resume. Choor monster (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: There aren't nearly as many irrelevant smokescreens as there was two years ago, but enough. If someone can show me where a subject's birth date being available matters is part of the GNG, then I'll take note of that.  Beyond that, the GNG has a very simple requirement: that a subject be discussed in significant detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  That standard was met for this article two years ago and notability isn't any more transitory than it was.   Ravenswing   11:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a strong inclusionist, so I'm fairly shocked to be in the minority on this one.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 13:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, people throw the "Deletionist!" slur at me all the time, so it happens ...   Ravenswing   22:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that standard was NOT met in the previous AfD. There was no "keep" conclusion or even a "no consensus". The discussion was simply closed as a train wreck. But if it had been evaluated as a discussion, without counting the ISPs, the result might well have been "delete". MelanieN (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I rather don't recall saying anything about the standard "being met in the AfD." I said that the standard was met two years ago.  I believed then, and do now, that sufficient reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail had been produced.  I agree that a simple head count of non-ISPs showed a majority vote for Delete, back then, and that it's quite common for closing admins to rule on head count over policy, but that doesn't change the facts.   Ravenswing   08:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reading the current article, which may be improved relative to when this AFD started, it seems to me that notability is established with reliable sources.  I happen to think that authoring any of the "X for Dummies" type of books, which i perceive to be quite influential, is pretty significant on its own.  It's hard to be the official-type spokesperson at the level of explaining things to dummies, it is not easy.  But other sources in the article count more for Wikipedia-notability.  Also, for what it's worth, i came here as a regular wikipedia editor participating often in AFDs, from visiting today's new AFDs, and I was unaware of this person and all previous controversy. -- do  ncr  am  23:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established through source improvements since the start of this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I have low standards and this article is not meeting them. If it is kept, most of the content here needs to be deleted for being promotional. For me to vote keep, I would want to see 2-3 sources which have as their subject the subject of this article. Passing mentions do not count, and instances of this person being asked to give an opinion in her field do not count. Wikipedia requires only a little journalism about the subjects of its articles, and if those sources exist, they are not being made clear here and are being mixed with promotional content which should be deleted.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Since it has been mentioned as a hypothetical for the 1st AfD, should a head count be done when closing this AfD, it should be noted that it is 6 to 7, not 4 to 7 as the Stats thus far show. Thanks. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as an author -- even her book in the Dummmies series has only 117 library holdings, which is quite low for this series. The various other journalism is relatively minor.  DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Libraries throw away and sell books all the time. As far as I can see, it is not possible to check what the level of holdings for a given book was on any particular date in the past. "Worldcat Identities" does not seem to give that information. In my view, the level of library holdings cannot be used as an argument for deletion because, unless we can check past library holdings, it is wholly incompatible with WP:NTEMP, because the level of holdings could have been higher in the past. In any event, I can't see why the point of comparison should be other books of that series rather than books in general. James500 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that library holdings, as a measure, is not suitable for our purposes. While I have not read the particular Dummies book by Pynchon, my past experience with others in the series suggests to me that the overall quality is high.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be suitable to compare how many of this Dummies are in libraries with the other Dummies books published the same year. After this vote is over, how about a vote on Success as a Mediator For Dummies?  At least merge its contents in with VP, assume this is kept? Choor monster (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) It is probably a POV comparison. There are many ways you could classify a book like that. Amazon put it on a list of "bestsellers" for a particular subject area. (2) If it is a plausible redirect to the publisher it will not be eligible for deletion. Alternatively, the "For Dummies" books might conceivably be collectively notable as a series, providing another possible target. (3) We do not vote at AfD. The expression "!vote" means something different. James500 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that library holdings data needs to be evaluated, not used as a pure numerical cut-off. I    said, "for books of this sort" Serious level self help books by major publishers usually have high library holding, as do books in this series. The dat of publication does have to be taken into account in connection with the nature of the book--libraries routinely delete old textbook sand children's fiction. But this book is published in 2012, and no library discard material that current.  DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 20 November 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.