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. The consensus is to delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Melissa Miles McCarter

Melissa Miles McCarter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author for whom I could find no evidence of meeting WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. Current sources are either not RS, not independent, or not offering significant coverage of her. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Completely, undoubtedly fails WP:NAUTHOR, and three online articles from local news outlets does not a notable subject make. Edit: My stance on this matter remains the same after the article's update; please see my comment below for elaboration. Edit 2: Keeping up with this is getting out-of-hand, as the article at this point is WP:CITEKILL, making individually addressing the citations like addressing Gish gallop; the subject is still not notable, and throwing absurd amounts of references that fail to satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR does not change that. See also: WP:NOTEBOMB, and especially WP:BOMBARD. TheTechnician27 ( talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• I created the page with help from another webpage that I found out was originally sourced from a deleted Wikipedia page but I found notable sources that back up the comments. I asked if I needed to put this in sandbox to work on and was told it could stay up as long as I wasn’t using multiple accounts. This writer has been cited in a number of postfeminist articles and I found out referred to in reference to her writing in mental illness and infertility. I think that her contributions make that notable, I’m researching postfeminism in relationship to trans and disability issues and I was introduced to this author’s work on infertility in terms of disability through the Rhetoric Research Network. I think that’s important for other people who share this interest. - Jenn Morris Jennmorris1 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jennmorris1: What are the reliable sources which discuss her? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jennmorris1: So you made a large addition of sources to the article. The article is definitely improved. Thanks for that. I am not, however, seeing notability. The only source that gives me pause is the Mount Holyoke bibliography - but there's a certain amount of an attempt to be comprehensive rather than selective there and it's certainly not significant coverage. Other sources are by McCarter herself or otherwise not RS. The best of this lot is the Daily Journal but that looks to be too small of a newspaper to impute notability. But I do have a much better understanding of why you found her notable even if I don't agree so thanks. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jenmorris1: (Apologies for the wall of text): Your goals are admirable, and it seems you're somewhat new to Wikipedia, which I know first-hand can be daunting (and maaaaybe a bit abstruse if I'm being honest). To explain it with hopefully little jargon, while there is some room for subjectivity, a subject for an article is required to be notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. Ultimately, Wikipedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia, and that means drawing a line, as not to become an indiscriminate repository of information. There are specific notability guidelines for different cases (for example when dealing with astronomical objects, geographical features, creatives, academics, etc.), and there's also what's known as the general notability guideline ( WP:GNG) that functions as a catch-all; in this case, WP:NAUTHOR is the relevant notability guideline. I don't think it's contentious to say that McCarter fails to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NAUTHOR, but that's not necessarily where the discussion ends. Per the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." To remove some ambiguity, the terms in that statement are defined more specifically (see GNG, linked above). While my argument above was for the original article, I'm still in agreement with @ Barkeep49: about this subject's lack of notability, and hence I still vote Delete. For starters, as they are unequivocally not independent, McCarter's articles in the HuffPost do not constitute or contribute to notability. You also added to the article: "Her writing and research on mental illness and postfeminism is referenced in a number of academic and non-academic sources", followed by two sources making passing reference to McCarter; passing references again do not constitute or contribute to notability. This article and this article from local online news outlets are about a TV show, not about McCarter. And then we're back to where we were when I made that comment above: three articles from local online news outlets (seen here, here, and here) does not a notable subject make. As an aside, you note that you've seen other articles with fewer references. There are two factors at play here: the first is that quality is almost entirely superior to quantity for notability as far as references go; the second is that those articles you've seen may also not be notable – with almost 6 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, things slip through the cracks. TheTechnician27 ( talk) 05:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: I think perhaps my opinion on the notability comes fr my seeing references to her work in various websites, podcasts, and academic articles I’ve read that mention her, I could work on finding more but I see Wikipedia articles with a lot less references! The STL Dispatch article mentions her community work and I’ve seen reference to it in Facebook posts, websites that aren’t “reliable” but do make it clear it has meaning to the residents there. Plus the Southeast Missourian isn’t small or local newspaper. I think the problem I’m having is explaining the notability of someone who is has contributed to my (albeit narrow) narrow field of disability studies and postfeminist thought. I noticed there is a list of Huffington Post contributors, would she be relevant there?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Draftify - This article (and our searches) have not turned up enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, but as we have a relatively new, yet determined editor, who I'm taking at their word User talk:Jennmorris1 does not have a WP:COI, and who initially wanted to work on the article in their sandbox, I recommend this article get moved to draft space and worked on there. It will give @ Jennmorris1: time to learn more about WP:GNG vs. WP:NOTEBOMB, so they can research and include WP:SIGCOV, (or perhaps come to realize the threshold is not met, and dedicate their efforts to another individual/organization/etc. meeting the notability standard for a Wikipedia article) and going that route will provide a structured review process before the article is returned to main space. Orville1974 ( talk) 07:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• It should be stressed that this new editor is already ostensibly knowledgeable about this niche field of study, yet a clearly almost exhaustive search coupled with Barkeep49's and my additional efforts have turned up almost nothing. Per WP:DRAFTIFY: "As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if: 1) the topic has some potential merit, and 2) the article does not meet the required standard, and 3) there is no evidence of active improvement. 4) or when the author clearly has a conflict of interest." Herein lies the problem: only 2) here is met through 2d: "The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor". 3) is not met, because 3a) this user is actively working on it, and 3b) there is an assertion being made that this article belongs on the mainspace. More importantly, because of what I noted before, 1) is not met because the subject is not plausibly notable. I want to specifically quote WP:DRAFTIFY's expansion on 1): "Has some merit -- 1a. for example, the topic is plausibly notable (if not, it should be speedy-deleted under A7 or nominated at AfD; do not draftify junk)." I reassert that the editor of this article carried out a near-exhaustive search in the WP:BOMBARDMENT, which combined with two other editors seeking out information on the subject effectively confirms this lack of plausible notability. TheTechnician27 ( talk) 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete from article space for sure. Unfortunately, the subject comprehensively fails both WP:GNG and the alternate criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. All of her books are self-published by her own press, Fat Daddy's Farm [1], [2]. Observe the results from WorldCat. None of them have been reviewed by mainstream publications. Wading through the extensive citation bombing reveals coverage of the subject herself only in unreliable/non-notable/self-published sources, sources authored by the subject herself, passing mentions, news from her college, or extremely local coverage, e.g. a piece in the "Community" section of the Southeast Missourian and one in the "Local" section of an even more local newspaper, Daily Journal. Possibly draftify per Orville1974, but I cannot see that draft ever being accepted with the current coverage. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

You've both convinced me (along with my own determined search to find something worthy of being deemed as a WP:RS. Moving the article to draft would just delay the inevitable. I've changed my recommendation to delete. Orville1974 ( talk) 09:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, the heading of the "Books" section is somewhat exaggerated. Both A Small Book of Wisdom and Earthquakes are only 24 pages long, have no ISBN numbers and are only published as free Kindle editions. The 130 page novella What Moves Her is likewise available for free on Kindle. McCarter is the editor, not the author, of the anthology Joy, Interrupted. Her short memoir Insanity: A Love Story does get c.120 words devoted to it in the "Resources" section of Living with Bipolar Disorder: A Handbook for Patients and Their Families published by McFarland (currently used as a reference), but that simply isn't enough. That book was (self)published 10 years ago, and if it had made any kind of impact, lasting or otherwise, there should be multiple sources like that one. There aren't. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per Nom and the reasoning of User:TheTechnician27. Even if reliable and independent a source can be perfectly alright for content but fail to advance notability. Mentioning that other stuff exists is often repeated on Wikipedia, because it may be true, but is usually never a good argument at AFD. Silence does not mean there are not issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The great majority of references are to content the subject of the article has written rather than to content about her. As noted above, books are self-published. David notMD ( talk) 10:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Jennmorris1, TheTechician explains a lot of my thinking above. But I will address one element they did not. Wikipedia has a hard time in thinking through notability of people in smaller fields. This is because drawing the distinction between small and niche is hard. Notable in a small field is probably enyclopedic. Notable in a niche field is probably not. In both these cases finding reliable sources to establish this notability is extremely challenging and because of our reliance on such sources we probably do not have coverage of some people who are as least as notable as certain Children's authors (to pick my own editing area) for whom we can and do have articles. In this case, there are certainly RS around disability studies and postfeminist thought and so someone who is notable for their intersection should have some significant coverage from those RS. In this case the coverage is more passing than significant. I hope that's helpful and that you do stick around Wikipedia despite what must be a frustrating experience here as there are likely to be some existing articles which could benefit from your expertise and editorial attention. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi I just saw this article is up for deletion and I appreciate the in depth discussion and recognize both the reasons for and against deleting it. I just want to say I have no objection to it being deleted if it doesn’t meet any of the standards. I’m not sure what draftify it means and @jenmorris seems to be saying she needs it for some class related and I saw a good suggestion to make a copy offline, but also maybe show this discussion? The issue of what is notable is an interesting rhetorical discussion in itself, what establishes ethos - which clearly self-published works lacks in this particular context, self-promotion being a major limitation to self-publishing, that notability can’t be established by off line or non-mainstream sources (academic conferences/smaller journals are woefully underrepresented online, often with broken links and aren’t maintained). As time goes by, google evolves and links go by the wayside. I’ve seen things I’ve researched that clearly had a presence 10 years ago not be on the web even though they are still discussed and cited off line! But I guess that’s one of the special considerations, Wikipedia isn’t a lexicon or encyclopedia of life, but of what is verifiable online. I think this exercise in debate does show the rhetorical considerations of notability, which is a good lesson itself to someone in that field. Like suggested, perhaps it will inspire further discussion of ethos and notability that can be of future use to @jenmorris and anyone else who is concerned - thanks @lissahoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissahoop ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I would imagine the chance that "links go by the wayside" would be a good reason to archive them. Otr500 ( talk) 02:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Otr500 I agree with you. But that is a challenge when links that could establish reliability aren’t archived. I know that is one of the reasons in the study of history that things are uncovered - information that doesn’t seem notable or relevant at a certain time is then important later on when it’s uncovered in research. What is obscure for one period can be highly important for a later one. (And can also fall out of fashion). But I imagine it’s not the purpose of Wikipedia to predict what information will be relevant and so you can’t archive everything in anticipation that it might. I think the wikipedia definition of what is considered for notable - part of which is to be enduring - is interesting. I’m not sure that knowledge or information is always enduring and what endures is often the result of a paradigm that is particular to a time period, matrix of power, and belief systems. And when that paradigm shifts, what endures can change. For example, women voices in prior centuries are being uncovered because of paradigm shifts valuing them in ways they weren’t before. They weren’t deemed notable or enduring. Anyway that’s a tangent. I do wonder if there is a way to go back to earlier periods of time of the World Wide Web to see those links that weren’t archived. Like a snapshot in time. Thanks for food for thought. Jennmorris1 ( talk) 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1 reply

I’ve been reading the Wikipedia article on notability and have a clearer understanding. What’s frustrating is when links that establish notability are no longer there in a google search (even google scholar or google books aren’t permanent). It’s also frustrating when relevant links get pushed down so that researching a subject can be misleading or too time consuming. You almost have to know what you are looking for to find it. When I started out on the internet, Yahoo! categorized information and that provided an organization that was helpful for research. But now google or other search engines are like a mass of information with no rhyme or reason. The google algorithm often prioritizes information in a way that can be hard to conduct research. It would be nice if something like the that type of Yahoo! directory still existed. I think then there could be an enduring categorized archive that didn’t necessarily have to meet the notable standards of Wikipedia. An organized capsule of information. Lissahoop ( talk) 06:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Lissahoop reply

• Lissahoop and Jennmorris1, just a quick answer to a couple of your points, as deletion discussions are meant to remain tightly focused and not to veer off into general philosophical issues about Wikipedia, academia, search engines etc.

1. There is a way to look back into many, many sites/web pages which are no longer online, and to preserve the ones which are. I suggest you read Wayback Machine for an introduction, if you are not already familiar with it. Wikipedia uses it quite extensively for restoring "lost" references.

2. Journals or books which are offline /behind a paywall are acceptable as references, provided the reference has complete bibliographic information and the book or journal itself is considered a reliable source. However, to establish the notability of a subject, those sources must discuss the subject in significant depth, not simply a passing mention of him or her or listing in a bibliography.

3. This deletion discussion will be preserved here. All AfD discussions are preserved whether or not the actual article is deleted or sent to draft space ("draftified"). If you would like to continue this general discussion you've both started, I suggest you use Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Melissa Miles McCarter. I would be happy to continue it with you there.

Voceditenore ( talk) 07:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• WP:SPEEDY delete . A series of experienced editors have taken a close look, including me, and it is a WP:SNOW delete. It is clear that this memoirist who writes about her struggles with mental illness is finding this process stressful. I suggest that because we all with her to have a calm and productive life, we WP:SPEEDY close this discussion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Just as a matter of record, there is no evidence that this is a stressful process to anyone involved and it’s a weird presumption that just because a person has written about past experiences with bipolar disorder that they would find this process stressful. If this needs to be deleted based on consensus and reasonable argument, that’s fine. But please don’t do it under the guise that further discussion would somehow cause stress. In my opinion, this has been a very interesting discussion that revealed the inner workings of Wikipedia. Hopefully no one who has commented here has found it stressful or an impediment to a calm or productive life. I know this is off topic but I thought it was important to address the concern that a polite and interesting discussion would lead anyone, whether having written about personal experiences, to be stressed out so it would interfere with his or her private life. And maybe since this discussion will be preserved, it will be useful record to help others understand in detail the reasoning behind various Wikipedia guidelines and intents. Lissahoop ( talk) 02:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Lissahoop reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 21:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WorldCat only lists one self-published book by her, held in two libraries; the other four things on the list of "books" in this article are either non-books or even more obscure than that. More to the point, I didn't find any published independent reviews of any of them. So WP:AUTHOR seems out of reach and the article doesn't present any case for any other form of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Evidence of notability not found. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC). reply
• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Very very obscure. scope_creep ^Talk 12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Netherzone ( talk) 23:11, 10 June 2019 (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.