Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Diane E. Benson (second nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:23, 3 November 2006 editJJay (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,366 edits []← Previous edit Revision as of 23:28, 3 November 2006 edit undoArbustoo (talk | contribs)12,546 edits []: dNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:
*Although there seems to be quite a few people interested in keeping this article, ''nobody'' has yet to show that she satisfies ]: In particular, we ''still'' have no ] indicating any of the following: <ul><li> The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.</li> <li> The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.</li> <li> Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.</li></ul> None of the existing links satisfy this: They are either not independent of Benson herself, or else mention her only obliquely. The exception is which does not, to me, appear to be a ], and in any case we are missing the "multiple" part of the requirements above. As I stated in the first AfD, we should keep this article if and only if she can be shown to satisfy ]. I will happly change my position to ''keep'' once this is done, but until then, '''Delete'''. ] 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC) *Although there seems to be quite a few people interested in keeping this article, ''nobody'' has yet to show that she satisfies ]: In particular, we ''still'' have no ] indicating any of the following: <ul><li> The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.</li> <li> The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.</li> <li> Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.</li></ul> None of the existing links satisfy this: They are either not independent of Benson herself, or else mention her only obliquely. The exception is which does not, to me, appear to be a ], and in any case we are missing the "multiple" part of the requirements above. As I stated in the first AfD, we should keep this article if and only if she can be shown to satisfy ]. I will happly change my position to ''keep'' once this is done, but until then, '''Delete'''. ] 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Fully qualifies for an article. Much news coverage of her political activities. I also see no need for a relist when that was not the explicit outcome on DRV. Overtuning a flawed close should not lead to an automatic relist. --] 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. Fully qualifies for an article. Much news coverage of her political activities. I also see no need for a relist when that was not the explicit outcome on DRV. Overtuning a flawed close should not lead to an automatic relist. --] 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' a third party canidate in a failed 2002 election is not notable. ] 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:28, 3 November 2006

Diane E. Benson

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned in light of input from members of WikiProject Alaska. I wish to make clear that there no flaw in procedure, and no error on the part of the previous closer; sufficient interest of a large number of well-informed established editors, unaware of the prior discussion, is itself a valid reason for relisting. This matter is submitted at AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused; I went to the policy page, but I don't see where an overturned deletion review should have its article renominated as a matter of procedure. Are we to go through a new discussion? we just did one-- Deirdre 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, we relist. Absent an overwhelming consensus (roughly 75% or more), success at DRV only means that the item is undeleted and relisted. DRV is mostly a forum for cloture, and rarely is DRV the final stage of a debate. Clearly, this matter was disputed; although relisters obtained a majority, they fell far short of an overwhelming consensus to undelete outright. See the white box at the top of the DRV page. Xoloz 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Benson was notable and newsworthy before she ran for the Senate as an artist and writer. Arguments for deletion was based on her being a candidate with little chance of winning, not on her notability as a Tlingit writer. She has had substantial press coverage before the election. Luigizanasi 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The most notable thing about the subject is her news coverage for the Congressional race. Regardless of the likelihood of the success of a Green candidate in an Alaskan race, I beleive she has sufficient news coverage to make a claim of notability. Samm Simpson, Bill Young's snowball opponent, gets 2 by comparison. (I will not nominate her article due to a conflict of interest. As much as doubt her notability.)
  • Keep Though I would argue that her chief notability is in her artistic/cultural contributions and that her current political ambitions are of secondary and limited notability; and that of course significant news coverage and "newsworthiness" is not automatically a conferrer of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 01:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete some old news hits and a book ranked at #2,700,000 hardly meets the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Should everyone who had the news once in their life get an article on wikipedia? I don't think so. Arbusto 08:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable Tlingit poet and playwright - notable for being one of only five professional Tlingit writers. Sufficient coverage in journals, etc, appended to article. Vizjim 09:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Congressional candidate who is the nominee of a major party. Silversnake020 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For all the reasons I've listed before: she's a major party candidate causing a ruckus in Alaska politics, she's an outspoken Tlingit woman author, and thus a relatively big fish in a small literary pond (Alaska literature, Alaska Native literature, Alaska women writers), and she's a relatively well-known Tlingit performer and playwright. Deirdre 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Candidacy enough is probably not enough, but combined with her literary and playwright accomplishments . . . keep. -- Sholom 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep I question the wisdom of deleting major party candidates, especially for high office. Without an article, it will always appear that the incumbant is challenged by a "nobody"; which is a disservice to voters and political scholars. In past elections, losing opponents can be embedded in the winner's article, but current campaigns deserve separate pages. Of course, a separate page should be maintained post-election if there is notable professional accomplishment outside of and in addition to politics.
  • Although there seems to be quite a few people interested in keeping this article, nobody has yet to show that she satisfies WP:BIO: In particular, we still have no reliable sources indicating any of the following:
    • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
    • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
    • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
    None of the existing links satisfy this: They are either not independent of Benson herself, or else mention her only obliquely. The exception is which does not, to me, appear to be a reliable source, and in any case we are missing the "multiple" part of the requirements above. As I stated in the first AfD, we should keep this article if and only if she can be shown to satisfy WP:BIO. I will happly change my position to keep once this is done, but until then, Delete. Vectro 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fully qualifies for an article. Much news coverage of her political activities. I also see no need for a relist when that was not the explicit outcome on DRV. Overtuning a flawed close should not lead to an automatic relist. --JJay 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a third party canidate in a failed 2002 election is not notable. Arbusto 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diane E. Benson (second nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic