Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marziah Karch (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 userfy. Moving article back to User:Lizardbones/DRAFT/Marziah Karch Swarm ♠ 04:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marziah Karch

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There has been no significant improvement in the sourcing since the previous AFD. Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have written me a note first. This was up for less than a day. What I kept trying to do is move this thing to AFC. But that didn't seem to be a choice other than copy and pasting, and I remember that being something I shouldn't be doing. It comes up in Google search, and that bothers me. I tried to move it to another page, and someone said I did it wrong. So I said "screw it" and just published it so if it was stuck in search, it would come up as a real page. Now it's stuck in debate, when it could have just been moved somewhere else or maybe some setting could have been toggled off so it wasn't searchable anymore but retained the editing history. That part seemed to be important. This whole process is messy, arbitrary, and frustrating. I'd rather have someone else tell me it was ready (or tell me where it should be fixed) than have everyone pounce on this as soon as it goes live. Lizardbones (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am okay with moving this back to draft. But I do want to point out that an AFC review is the opinion of only one person and an article put through AFC is still may be nominated for deletion. As for the additional sourcing, I addressed that in the nomination statement.--Whpq (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So can we just end this thing and move it? We both agree it's fine to move it. I don't want to spend time debating the definition of "significant" for the next month. Lizardbones (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of third-party coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third party sources exist. Some were added at the end of the AFD debate (and not debated) some were added after. There are sufficient sources to verify the facts in the article. The nature of technical and online writing is such that you are not going to find book reviews in newspapers or biographies. What you're going to find is people noting her as an expert and/or quoting her work, several instances are cited. She's written for Wired and several other highly reputable publications with editorial control and gatekeeping to keep "anyone" from writing on them. 114 citations in Google Scholar (I have no idea what a good number is for that). Her print books are in circulation in libraries. So much of this seems like it should be common sense. Lizardbones (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft: as requested by creator. LaMona (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now well referenced including awards.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Can you please explain how the sourcing is good. Also explain how you believe the awards are significant with particular attention to the coverage.--Whpq (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with Moving back to draft: or user:-space. I didn't even really look at the article - since it's only been back at article space for a short time and the drafter wants to move it out of article space that sounds like an easy solution. It would be different if this were a clear-cut no-brainer WP:N-fail or a clear-cut no-brainer WP:PROMO-piece, but if it were that then everyone would've been screaming "delete" long before I dropped into this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG to establish notability. That's really all that matters at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as I do not think that this article is salvagable. It would have to present significant coverage of her, not what is footnoted at present. The author may be mistaking number of references with significance. See Msnicki above. I did not find any more about her, so incubation is unlikely to deliver a usable article that meets the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft/userspace - Article isn't covered by third party sources. Article isn't necessarily salvagable. ~~

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.