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. If material can be used on another article, please ask at
WP:REFUND. The preponderant opinion here seems to be to delete due to notability and fringe pushing concerns.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
delete holy cow this article is four years old and the only refs are a bunch of spamming links. TNT. Maybe there is something here but it would have to be completely rewritten.
Jytdog (
talk) 21:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete part of the Integral Thought walled garden. Note all the self-references. I could ref check this and exhaustively tag this but I'm only on two weeks' holiday -
David Gerard (
talk) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Although the article has a section called "References", it is actually a list of books and papers that she has written, which are not independent and not acceptable as Wikipedia references. Essentially, this is an unreferenced BLP, which is contrary to policy.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment, added women project to article talkpage so that participants are informed of afd. forgot to sign, sorry.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 08:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The biggest problem with the article is that it is gibberish and needs a lot of cleanup. The second biggest problem is seeing what sources do exist. I found an interview that has a photo of her
here, which may be useful in a search, as there are multiple people with this name. My question is if her publications are self-pub or independently published. Seems we have an interesting theorist here, the question isn't so much if she's fringe as if she's notable for her ideas or not.
Montanabw(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as per above.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- weakly sourced
WP:PROMO possibly written by someone close to the subject: note the use of "Marilyn" to refer to her, rather than more neutral "Hamilton".
K.e.coffman (
talk) 19:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect to
Integral City or vice-versa. The two as separate articles don't sut it for me, but combining them as a BIO1E or a book-and-author set works, there are eough sources in combination to support one article.
Montanabw(talk) 06:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
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. If material can be used on another article, please ask at
WP:REFUND. The preponderant opinion here seems to be to delete due to notability and fringe pushing concerns.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
delete holy cow this article is four years old and the only refs are a bunch of spamming links. TNT. Maybe there is something here but it would have to be completely rewritten.
Jytdog (
talk) 21:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete part of the Integral Thought walled garden. Note all the self-references. I could ref check this and exhaustively tag this but I'm only on two weeks' holiday -
David Gerard (
talk) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Although the article has a section called "References", it is actually a list of books and papers that she has written, which are not independent and not acceptable as Wikipedia references. Essentially, this is an unreferenced BLP, which is contrary to policy.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment, added women project to article talkpage so that participants are informed of afd. forgot to sign, sorry.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 08:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The biggest problem with the article is that it is gibberish and needs a lot of cleanup. The second biggest problem is seeing what sources do exist. I found an interview that has a photo of her
here, which may be useful in a search, as there are multiple people with this name. My question is if her publications are self-pub or independently published. Seems we have an interesting theorist here, the question isn't so much if she's fringe as if she's notable for her ideas or not.
Montanabw(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as per above.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- weakly sourced
WP:PROMO possibly written by someone close to the subject: note the use of "Marilyn" to refer to her, rather than more neutral "Hamilton".
K.e.coffman (
talk) 19:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect to
Integral City or vice-versa. The two as separate articles don't sut it for me, but combining them as a BIO1E or a book-and-author set works, there are eough sources in combination to support one article.
Montanabw(talk) 06:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
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.