- 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
A. B. Stoddard
- A. B. Stoddard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was contested by a user with <10 contributions returning from several years inactivity [1]. Semi-procedural nomination. This BLP fails to assert notability, has been unsourced since 2010, and was initially created by User:Qworty (see WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up) Seth Kellerman ( talk) 07:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 27. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 07:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notability sustained, Stoddard is well regarded In the media industry as a professional, more ref's would be helpful to substantiate, alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. talk→ WPPilot 06:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Notability is not sustained, that is the reason we are here at AfD. I would be happy to withdraw my nomination if sources are forthcoming. However, on an admittedly cursory search, I found many articles written by Stoddard and a number of interviews conducted by Stoddard, but next to nothing about Stoddard herself - only vapid puff pieces by people with an interest in promoting her. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Biographical pieces about Stoddard would be nice but they are somewhat arbitrary. For someone who does creative work for a living (political pundit, journalist, producer), significant is if their work is notable. Per WP:CREATIVE that is if others have written about Stoddard's works. Here are some recent examples:
- I don't think these are quality sources and I can't find much better. I'll change vote if there are better sources about Stoddard or her work. -- Green C 00:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, it's a common fallacy that any appearance in media counts as a reliable source, but in this case while Stoddard seems to have contributed to a number of major and reliable news sources, they're not a big enough player that anyone independent has actually written about them. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CREATIVE and that this article should be kept, but improved per WP:DEL-CONTENT. The number of parties quoting her, or asking her to appear in their media, is an indication. A Google search and Google news search shows sufficient media including WP:RS quoting her or having her appear in their media. "widely cited by peers or successors" is sufficient for creatives to be notable. - per WP:CREATIVE. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The
Google Trends returns positive on this name search. But, of course, only in the United States.Solatido 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Solatido (
talk •
contribs)
- Irreleant; see WP:GHITS. Also untrue, as Stoddard's google trends have been flatlining from spring 2014 onwards. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 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.
- 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
A. B. Stoddard
- A. B. Stoddard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was contested by a user with <10 contributions returning from several years inactivity [1]. Semi-procedural nomination. This BLP fails to assert notability, has been unsourced since 2010, and was initially created by User:Qworty (see WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up) Seth Kellerman ( talk) 07:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 27. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 07:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notability sustained, Stoddard is well regarded In the media industry as a professional, more ref's would be helpful to substantiate, alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. talk→ WPPilot 06:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Notability is not sustained, that is the reason we are here at AfD. I would be happy to withdraw my nomination if sources are forthcoming. However, on an admittedly cursory search, I found many articles written by Stoddard and a number of interviews conducted by Stoddard, but next to nothing about Stoddard herself - only vapid puff pieces by people with an interest in promoting her. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Biographical pieces about Stoddard would be nice but they are somewhat arbitrary. For someone who does creative work for a living (political pundit, journalist, producer), significant is if their work is notable. Per WP:CREATIVE that is if others have written about Stoddard's works. Here are some recent examples:
- I don't think these are quality sources and I can't find much better. I'll change vote if there are better sources about Stoddard or her work. -- Green C 00:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, it's a common fallacy that any appearance in media counts as a reliable source, but in this case while Stoddard seems to have contributed to a number of major and reliable news sources, they're not a big enough player that anyone independent has actually written about them. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CREATIVE and that this article should be kept, but improved per WP:DEL-CONTENT. The number of parties quoting her, or asking her to appear in their media, is an indication. A Google search and Google news search shows sufficient media including WP:RS quoting her or having her appear in their media. "widely cited by peers or successors" is sufficient for creatives to be notable. - per WP:CREATIVE. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The
Google Trends returns positive on this name search. But, of course, only in the United States.Solatido 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Solatido (
talk •
contribs)
- Irreleant; see WP:GHITS. Also untrue, as Stoddard's google trends have been flatlining from spring 2014 onwards. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 02:42, 23 July 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.