Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Collisson (2nd nomination)

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) 18:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Collisson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nancy Collisson
• Articles for deletion/Nancy Collisson (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nancy Collisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for writers. The notability claim on offer here is that she and her work exist, with no indication of the distinctions (literary awards, significant reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of her work, etc.) that it takes to turn existence into notability -- the closest thing that was present, until I stripped it as a violation of WP:ELNO, was a handful of direct offsite links to online bookstores or web-published copies of her own work, and while there have been additional footnotes here in the past that were recently removed by an editor claiming to be the subject herself, they were still just of the "her own work cited as proof of its own existence" variety rather than notability-building third party media coverage about her or her work.
The only reason I'm not just immediately speedying this is because it's been around (without ever having been properly referenced) since 2006. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete It's interesting to see that two years ago, an editor who stated she was Nancy Collisson tried to have the article deleted but the request was refused because too many other editors had contributed to the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  The most effective way to have a biography kept is for the subject to request deletion. Thincat (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. There are two more related historical AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Buffy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Buffy (2nd nomination). The Mr. Buffy page is currently a redirect to Collisson's page. pburka (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'VE ASKED YOU TO DELETE THE PAGE AND YOU JUST WON'T DO IT! WHOEVER SAID THAT THE BEST WAY TO GUARANTEE YOUR PAGE WILL STAY IS BY ASKING FOR IT TO BE DELETED, WAS CORRECT. MY GOD WHAT DOES IT TAKE? DELETE IT ALREADY! I'M NANCY COLLISSON AND YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION. AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DELETE IT, THEN STOP HUMILIATING ME WITH THIS UGLY THREAT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE THE DAMN PAGE! IT LOOKS SHITTIER THAN IT WOULD WITHOUT YOUR UGLY REMARKS ALL OVER IT. EITHER STICK THE KNIFE IN AND KILL IT OR REMOVE YOUR THREATS!

Please note that we do not have a responsibility to obey your wishes; you have a responsibility to obey our rules. If, say, you had tried to ask for deletion the first time through our proper processes for that, then it might have gone differently than it did — but that was not a failure on our part to meet any responsibility we had, it was a failure on your part to follow the correct process. Especially given that you created the article yourself in the first damn place — so in reality, you wanted a Wikipedia article until you realized that our conflict of interest rules don't permit you to control it, and only then did you change your mind to begin demanding deletion. So know that if you say one more word on Wikipedia in the tone of voice you just tried to pull here, I'm also going to block your editing privileges for violating our civility rules — either you speak to us calmly and with respect, or you go jump off a cliff. The article will be kept or deleted based on our rules, not yours. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it might have helped if the admin who rejected the G12 had actually told the nominator what the correct process was. Our processes are sometimes arcane and difficult-to-discover for newcomers. pburka (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. No reason to doubt that this editor is, in fact, the subject, and notability is very marginal anyway. (Typically deletion discussions are allowed to run for at least 7 days, so the notice will remain in place that long.) pburka (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per request of subject and notability failure. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:44, 23 September 2021 (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.