- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Loriann Oberlin
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Loriann Oberlin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article about a subject that does not appear to meet WP:BIO; other than a Publisher's Weekly review of one of her books and a Newspaper.com link that doesn't mention her, all sources appear to be primary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood ( talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional puff piece for a non-notable person. Drmies ( talk) 01:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The piece appears very... fluffy, to say the least. I'd second the deletion, primarily out of the concern of its lack of overall notability. The individual in question doesn't appear to be well-listed as a contributor to any of the fields she is discussed in, the structural approach is remarkably personalized with respect to the merit of any accomplishments, and the original purpose of the article's creation may very well have been questionable in the first place. Though I may be unfamiliar for the most part with deletion candidates apart from this one, the fact that this rather obscure page about a professional is deemed notable enough to garner a page doesn't sit right with me. Even without all the inadequate detailing that doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's policies, I'd be reluctant to even keep the page if it was perfectly cleaned up. ...You have my go-ahead with the deletion!!! Anyone else...? TheMysteriousShadeheart ( talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot find sources for the largely unsourced information in this article. She appears to have co-written one book (on passive-aggression) that sold well; other books don't seem to have had an impact. However, I don't find any information about her, and the one well-received book isn't enough for NAUTH. Lamona ( talk) 23:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This article should be deleted unless you want to keep it as a training ground for new Wikipedia editors. Based on the information provided in the article, Loriann Oberlin is not a person of sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Her only notable accomplishment consists of co-authoring the book Overcoming Passive-Aggression (2005), which has itself not been important or influential enough to meet the criteria for a "Creative Professional" in WP:BIO. Her other works are largely self-published or published by ebook companies. The article's references are mainly from sources of dubious integrity and promotional intent. Finally, the article appears to have been written either by Loriann Oberlin herself or someone interested in promoting her, as it is full of subjective, tedious, and unverifiable claims. Glenstorm85 ( talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I was unable to find enough strong reliable sources to support Oberlin's notability. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I also searched for evidence of Oberlin's contributions in academic research journals, media archives, and other non-primary sources but only found one piece that included her 2005 book. ErrataNonGrata ( talk) 07:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be a non-notable page to me. Has anyone found any evidence otherwise? user:Skullovitch — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is the strangest thing but since this article has been nominated, there have been dozens of new accounts that have popped up to edit it and this AFD. Sockfarm,
Drmies? Seems like a strange target for socks but I have given up trying to make sense of their behavior.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I wondered the same thing Liz, but I think there could be a more
benign explanation.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
19:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked a few per NOTHERE. Here's my rationale: if someone came to that article to do a little thing, and then made one or two small edits elsewhere, they're not here to improve our beautiful project. CU shows nothing that makes any sense, but I haven't checked all of them.
Drmies (
talk)
22:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I misread and thought we were talking about this discussion; I see the actual article edit history now. WTH? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked a few per NOTHERE. Here's my rationale: if someone came to that article to do a little thing, and then made one or two small edits elsewhere, they're not here to improve our beautiful project. CU shows nothing that makes any sense, but I haven't checked all of them.
Drmies (
talk)
22:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I wondered the same thing Liz, but I think there could be a more
benign explanation.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
19:06, 2 September 2022 (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 delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Loriann Oberlin
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Loriann Oberlin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article about a subject that does not appear to meet WP:BIO; other than a Publisher's Weekly review of one of her books and a Newspaper.com link that doesn't mention her, all sources appear to be primary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood ( talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional puff piece for a non-notable person. Drmies ( talk) 01:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The piece appears very... fluffy, to say the least. I'd second the deletion, primarily out of the concern of its lack of overall notability. The individual in question doesn't appear to be well-listed as a contributor to any of the fields she is discussed in, the structural approach is remarkably personalized with respect to the merit of any accomplishments, and the original purpose of the article's creation may very well have been questionable in the first place. Though I may be unfamiliar for the most part with deletion candidates apart from this one, the fact that this rather obscure page about a professional is deemed notable enough to garner a page doesn't sit right with me. Even without all the inadequate detailing that doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's policies, I'd be reluctant to even keep the page if it was perfectly cleaned up. ...You have my go-ahead with the deletion!!! Anyone else...? TheMysteriousShadeheart ( talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot find sources for the largely unsourced information in this article. She appears to have co-written one book (on passive-aggression) that sold well; other books don't seem to have had an impact. However, I don't find any information about her, and the one well-received book isn't enough for NAUTH. Lamona ( talk) 23:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This article should be deleted unless you want to keep it as a training ground for new Wikipedia editors. Based on the information provided in the article, Loriann Oberlin is not a person of sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Her only notable accomplishment consists of co-authoring the book Overcoming Passive-Aggression (2005), which has itself not been important or influential enough to meet the criteria for a "Creative Professional" in WP:BIO. Her other works are largely self-published or published by ebook companies. The article's references are mainly from sources of dubious integrity and promotional intent. Finally, the article appears to have been written either by Loriann Oberlin herself or someone interested in promoting her, as it is full of subjective, tedious, and unverifiable claims. Glenstorm85 ( talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I was unable to find enough strong reliable sources to support Oberlin's notability. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I also searched for evidence of Oberlin's contributions in academic research journals, media archives, and other non-primary sources but only found one piece that included her 2005 book. ErrataNonGrata ( talk) 07:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be a non-notable page to me. Has anyone found any evidence otherwise? user:Skullovitch — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is the strangest thing but since this article has been nominated, there have been dozens of new accounts that have popped up to edit it and this AFD. Sockfarm,
Drmies? Seems like a strange target for socks but I have given up trying to make sense of their behavior.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I wondered the same thing Liz, but I think there could be a more
benign explanation.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
19:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked a few per NOTHERE. Here's my rationale: if someone came to that article to do a little thing, and then made one or two small edits elsewhere, they're not here to improve our beautiful project. CU shows nothing that makes any sense, but I haven't checked all of them.
Drmies (
talk)
22:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I misread and thought we were talking about this discussion; I see the actual article edit history now. WTH? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked a few per NOTHERE. Here's my rationale: if someone came to that article to do a little thing, and then made one or two small edits elsewhere, they're not here to improve our beautiful project. CU shows nothing that makes any sense, but I haven't checked all of them.
Drmies (
talk)
22:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I wondered the same thing Liz, but I think there could be a more
benign explanation.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
19:06, 2 September 2022 (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.