Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Esther

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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Esther

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A very trivial mention in the Washington Post, lack significant in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable writer. Quis separabit? 03:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, NWRITER, etc. South Nashua (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not establish that the subject meets WP:N, as it is purely trivial mentions. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete", but there was an appeal on my talk page so relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has received reviews of her work in several reliable sources. She was written up by the Christian Post and mentioned by Washington Post. She passes CREATIVE. I've added the sources to the article. Please take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. The delete opinions were all before the references were added. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes N, adequate coverage in secondary sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: On July 14, 2017 I posted a technical question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts asking why this AfD wasn't picked-up by the BOT scan (thinking that's how Projects are notified of articles at AfD, etc.) Xxanthippe wrongfully accused me of canvassing. In case anybody is wondering, I also asked a similar question on the TP of Gene93k today since he posts such notices. If you're interested in what time I wake-up in the morning, please post your question to my TP. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources to pass WP:Author. Note. This AfD has been canvassed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts#Question without attribution. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Rather thin canvass. Thincat (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - before any further allegations are made about canvassing, I highly recommend a refresher read of WP:APPNOTE, which clearly states that it's appropriate to place a notification or message on The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

And Xxanthippe, please strike your note as the allegation is inappropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing can be done that in a way that is appropriate if conducted according to the guidelines. One of the statements in the guideline says It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. The discussion itself is clearly this AfD, and no note was left here, so the guideline has not been followed. It was therefore appropriate to call attention to this lapse and hope that it will not be repeated. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, that's a notification and request for how to list something, Xxanthippe. It's absolutely not a canvass (see WP:CAN which defines canvassing as an attempt to influence the outcome of a discussion and has nothing to do with neutral notifications.). Atsme has every right to request help for bots that notify interested WikiProjects. Also, considering the subject of the article's work has been reviewed in several RS, how does she not pass WP:AUTHOR? She's received significant critical attention and that's on top of the articles about her life. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AUTHOR point 4 says "The person's work (or works) ... has won significant critical attention" and the evidence found so far is that this may be true. The article should be allowed time to develop. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post non-trivial coverage in my opinion satisfies WP:GNG and WaPo is a reliable independent source. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just saw this had been reopened. Good work rewriting the article and providing the sourcing neccesary. I've struck my above !vote. Agreed that this meets WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG, and appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR from what I can tell. Also as Megalibrarygirl mentioned she was written about in two somewhat major publications. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (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.