Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan RoAne

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan RoAne

edit
Susan RoAne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be promotional in nature, and it looks like this person does not meet notability guidelines. None of the references seem very reliable, almost all are promotional in nature. The WSJ article names her in passing, so maybe this counts as notable? Also, the creator, ScoringGoals14, seems very suspicious. Looking through the contribs, it feels like an experienced wiki editor created a new account just to create this article, but made a few very minor edits to other articles before and after creating this one so as to arouse less suspicion, and perhaps try to avoid being tagged as a new user on page curation? (which did still tag the user as new.) This would maybe suggest that it was created by a publicist of some sort? (This is pure speculation, but perhaps still important). Nevertheless, the main point is that this article seems overly promotional in tone, and does not source important parts (like the background.) At the very least, as a BLP article, the unreferenced stuff has to be stripped, and if that happened, there would be very little substance to this article anyway). 

Benboy00 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Upon your suggestion, I have removed unreferenced content. I've worked on this a while and thought it was well-written and well-referenced. I'm still learning the process and would welcome any other advice on how to improve this page. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Definitely WP:PROMO. Going down the sources in order, the SF State University one is an ad listing for a course she's giving; the Fripp one is an article self-published by someone who calls herself RoAne's "marketing buddy". The Huffington Post one is actually a video produced by RoAne's publisher. The UT School Of Law one is an ad for an event. The NYU one is promo for an event. The Harper Collins one is from her publisher. The Publisher's Weekly one appears to be legitimately third-party... but it doesn't support the claim that it is being referenced against ("which was number one on Book of the Month Club’s Best Seller list and the Publisher's Weekly Best Seller list."); that information is not in the source. Then we're at the subject's own website. Then we have another third party site, but she's just one on a list of more than 80 speakers that at least some unnamed meeting planner praised. The next three to various publications are indeed third party sources, and do indeed verify that she has written for them, but articles by her (as opposed to articles about her) do not convey notability. Next is the Wall Street Journal, which does have a brief quote, but only half a sentence about her, not a conveyor of notability. The claim that she has been heard on NPR points to what appears to be merely local shows on two NPR affiliates, not on something syndicated across the nation. So if we strip away the puffery and the things not appropriately sourced, there's not much left here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I certainly see the point of deleting any bio that starts out by describing the subject as a "thought leader", she is apparently a notable author. Worldcat shows that What do I say next is in 730 libraries, How to Work a Room is in 1187 counting both editions, and the others in several hundred also. one or more of her books have been translated into German, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Polish. book Review index shows reviews in Publishers' weekly (multiple) , Booklist, Globe & Mail, Library journal (multiple),the WSJ ; Google news archive shows at least a dozen newspapers. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chat) @ 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (cackle) @ 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Blatant advertising. She may be notable, but it doesn't matter if the article reads like an advertisement. Some major adjustments must be made OR we will have to start over again. PrairieKid (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotional flim-flam. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. Please review again. I have made several changes that address many of your concerns and added several reputable third-party references, mainly a Chicago Tribune piece from 1990 that supports the InfoBox, Background section intro sentence and best seller status. Please let me know how I can reword any further to highlight her notability and read less like an advertisement. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is a BLP, I am now going to remove all unsourced information that was not removed in the last purge. Please note that this may significantly decrease the length of the article and possibly turn it into a stub. Benboy00 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)--[reply]

  • Comment After painstakingly reading through all 19 of the sources, it turns out that the information I intended to remove was not unsourced, it was just not cited properly. Please ensure that the citations point to the right articles, and cite references for all of the sections in the infobox. As far as I can see, all of the information in this article is now backed up by sources (although in many cases not particularly good ones, like a personal website for example). I still feel, however, that this article has quite a lot of irrelevant information, like the fact that she was named a favourite speaker in a non-notable magazine. I also still feel that the subject herself is non-notable, and despite edits, it still feels like an advert. Benboy00 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The multitude of book reviews in reliable sources make it an unambiguous case of WP:AUTHOR #3. The article has been greatly improved during the AfD process. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added the citations to the reference for the infobox content. Please let me know if there are other improper cites. I've reviewed the rest and feel they are all in the right places. Thanks. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the quality of the article and the motivations of the author only really matter for borderline cases. This is not. I'll quote DGG above, "Worldcat shows that What do I say next is in 730 libraries, How to Work a Room is in 1187 counting both editions, and the others in several hundred also. one or more of her books have been translated into German, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Polish. book Review index shows reviews in Publishers' weekly (multiple)" -- 730 and 1187 are both way above the normal library holding cut-offs for notability as a researcher. Plus the article continues to improve, rendering the quality arguments largely moot. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that this article is better sourced, the big problem for me is that it's mostly just a list of books shes written, organisations whove published her, and a list of clients. There no real content, and it still (to me), after multiple edits, screams "advert". I also have a problem with the last paragraph: Almost two thirds of those 23 items do not have a reliable (or indeed any) source. I have searched for sources on google, and have found several, but they are not particularly reliable. I have looked for many (though not all) of the articles that are presumably being referenced, but cannot find them. I also still have a problem with her personal website being source for a significant portion of this short article. Benboy00 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the unsourced content from the area you mentioned. I also re-organized the content to highlight her notability as an author, which others have agreed is apparent. Additionally, I included two more references (one to the New York Times), for a total of 21 with only one coming directly from her site. Please let me know what else I can do to resolve this. Thanks. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and Stub. The WorldCat numbers mentioned above are correct, but context is important. While they would clearly demonstrate notability for academic books, they are not terribly impressive for mass market books and especially not for the "self-help" sector. (There are no established milestones that I'm aware of, but I would hazard at least a 10-fold difference between academic and self-help, implying 2K to 3K in required holdings, such as is typically the case for Deepak Chopra's books.) Much of the article is still an advert. For example, minutiae like giving a lecture are non-encyclopedic. In fact, almost all of the "Background" section, including the whole 2nd paragraph is blatant advert and should be deleted. The recitation of all her books takes up the rest of the article, making it look CV'ish, as well. Reducing it to the lede and a few of her top-held books would probably be the appropriate balance. Will cede right of first refusal to the interested parties here before taking on the task myself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bibliography and media appearance material is typical and normal in biography articles I disagree with the characterization as an "advert". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say remove the biblio, but rather advised giving it due size relative to the article. This would mean having just the 2 or 3 top books. Many BLPs suffer from barfing an entire CV onto the page, which the average reader is not interested in. As for "media appearance material", it is actually not typical. All you have to do is check any celebrity page and you'll find that most, if not all their appearances are not listed. Otherwise, that's all the article would consist of. This is the sort of WP:PUFF that we try to avoid because it is part and parcel of the type of work this subject makes a living at. The facts are that this person satisfies inclusion guidelines (barely, in my opinion) by virtue of book holdings, but nevertheless there's very little that can be written about her because there is very little WP:RS at the moment, as mentioned above. Stubbing is appropriate. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Of course representative media appearances are typically listed, they help establish context, in this case it is part of the persons career history; and of course we list full bibliographies on Wikipedia we even create separate bibliography pages if they get too long. So long as everything is reliably sourced and written in NPOV there is no problem. I'll be happy to take this as far as you want but this AfD page is not the right place to discuss these kinds of content issues (assuming it closes keep). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll likewise be happy to take this as far as you want, inappropriate challenge notwithstanding. Representative is, of course, the operative word. The problem is that this particular page seems to list all such instances for the apparent sole purpose of puffing-up the article. Moreover, we rarely list full biographies of authors, scientists, et al., because they're too long. For example, Eric Lander has published >500 scientific articles, but his bio lists only about a dozen representative examples to give the appropriate sourcing for the text. There simply isn't a lot to say about RoAne that is encyclopedic. Sorry, Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Actually we do list complete bibliographies of books by regular authors. We'll trim science papers, journal articles etc but that is irrelevant, she is not an academic with >500 scientific articles. Nine books is not "too long". I can't wait for the RfC: "Should we list nine books or is that too long". Are you serious? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unable to appreciate the fact that there are about 3 sentences of encyclopedic material here and that what you're proposing will mean that 95% of the article will consist of her bibliography. We're trying not to send WP back to its Pokemon days of having massive puff articles on topics of debatable notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yes clearly this article is going to push Wikipedia back to the dark ages. Please stop the theatrics and stick to the point: this AfD is for discussing keeping or deleting the article. If there is content issue deal with it in the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if its appropriate to mention this here, but the creators editing habits still seem extremely suspicious. ScoringGoals14 edits in infrequent batches. These batches always include the Susan RoAne article, or the deletion page. All edits to other pages are just adding links which, while a helpful activity, is at the same time a bit odd. Why would someone make what is presumably a new account, only to add links to pages (and then create one page)? Could it be an IP contrib who found the urge to create a page? There seems to be no relationship between edited pages, varying from Slow programming to Redcurrent sauce, and almost all of the edits consist purely of adding square brackets to terms to turn them into wiki links, like this and this and this and so on. I'm surprised that there isnt a bot for that (maybe there is). I agree with Agricola44 in that the background section is pretty much an advert, but I actually think that much of the short lede is advertising, and I also just realised that for bits of it, the source doesn't say what the article says (for example, doesnt talk about publishers weekly, and there isn't anything about her being an "expert on face to face interaction", which sounds hugely like a marketing term. Also, thanks for the policy link. I deal with promotional BLP's quite a lot, and I never realised there were wp guidelines on it. Benboy00 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, while we make no accusations, there are many worrisome signs of WP:COI, which almost always leads to a puffed-up article. The requirements for BLPs are very strict, especially with respect to sourcing. This article will have to be culled of puff if it is to be kept. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Even if it was COI (not established), it is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. The perception of puffery is obviously being influenced by the perception of who wrote the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, signs present, but COI not conclusively established. I came in relatively late on this case and have no association with how it came to be at AfD. Nevertheless, once at AfD, an article routinely gets criticized in all kinds of ways – the more comprehensive scrutiny basically functions as an important WP quality control. Those articles that survive invariably emerge much better than when they went into AfD, in my experience. In this case, the puffery/advert aspect is present and obvious: "RoAne's clients include...[long list]", "She has been published in...[long list]", "She has also been heard on radio programs...", etc. These items are minutiae that are not only un-encyclopedic, but lack proper sourcing, e.g. they cite the "client list" at susanroane.com, the subject's own business website. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
If there is a sourcing problem we'll work on that. What you're missing is the context and relevancy of this information to the topic, what else would an encyclopedia article about this person be other than the type of information it contains. This isn't some major historical figure, the information is trite because the subject is trite (though notable by wikipedia standards), it's relevant information to the topic, it describes her career and adds context. The wording can change, the sourcing can change, maybe not all of it would be included, but the basics are ok. The contention that this should be stubified to a few sentences and two books doesn't hold, it does more damage than good. I too often see people attack perceived COI articles ruthlessly to the point of doing more harm than good. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you can see at the top, the main reason that I nominated the article for deletion was apparent lack of notability, massive promotionality, and lack of sources. The COI point was an added curiosity that I thought relevant, although if it turns out to be an actual COI, then that alone would be a reason to delete. Perhaps if the only information on a person is their client list for motivational books and presentations, they are not, in fact, notable? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COI, then that alone would be a reason to delete.. no, it's not. Please read the rules. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. i did: WP:Autobiography the suspected COI is also the article creator, meaning if there is COI the article will likely be deleted. 2. theres no need to be rude... Benboy00 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first you said COI "alone would be a reason to delete", now you say "COI the article will likely be deleted". In fact what it actually says is something different. And it's not even a rule, rather an informative courtesy of what typically happens in certain situations. In short, there is no rule that COI are reason alone to delete. Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


@ Cardamom: Let me understand this. You're admitting that the subject is more-or-less uninteresting ("trite", in your words), but you're still advocating for an article in expanded form. Sounds to me like special pleading for puffery. I think you're too focused on the COI. Like we all said, that hasn't been established. The puff/advertiness is the problem. I think any harm that will be done is to both the subject and to WP by violating BLP policies and leaving the article in its current state. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
"Pleading for puffery" lol You forget I have no association with this topic. I'm not a COI, I don't think the material is advertising, I'm advocating for it because I think it's appropriate for the topic. And now you're bringing up BLP ok whatever. Why don't you save your ammunition for the inevitable RfC and give the closing admin of this AfD a break from reading all this. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, in that comment Agricola was perfectly civil. Your response seems like it wasnt. BLP policy is extremely important generally, and obviously relevant as this is a BLP. The reason this article has been culled quite a bit is mainly due to the fact that its a BLP. I dont think Agricola is trying to attack you, he/she is just trying to understand an apparent inconsistency in your argument, something I too am interested in, as can be seen in my response to you above. Please try to remain WP:CIVIL and unemotionally involved. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is uncivil saying I am overly "emotional" (a personal attack). It's also instigating a fight that "Agricola is trying to attack [me]". I would really prefer that this conversation come to an end as it is clearly not going anywhere useful. It won't be resolved today and you'll have many opportunities to argue your case in the proper forum. I look forward to working with you. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sign of incivility here. There seems to be an overreaction. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Well, what I mean is using terms like "lol" and "ok whatever". These would tend to provoke (or suggest) emotional involvement, which is not really conducive to debate. Also, suggesting that points (or "ammunition") should be "saved for the RfC" (paraphrasing) seems unhelpful. Surely all points should be discussed here, so that the closing admin can make the right call? It would seem like this is in fact the proper forum. I clearly did *not* say that agricola was trying to attack you, in fact I said the opposite. I am just trying to make sure that this debate stays on topic, rather than becoming people accusing each other of COI aomong other things (although I do think that the COI status of the original creator is still important). I did not mean for you to feel personally attacked, and I apologise if you feel offended. I think it would be best if we all just stepped back a bit and concentrated on the issue at hand. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reduced the bibliography section to be a selected listing per the comments. I'm new to Wikipedia and just trying to learn the process. If my posting is strange, I do apologize. When you first sign up the site guides you to change basic things like spelling or adding links and guides you through a series of random pages. I also enjoy that button on the sidebar. Based on the ongoing response to this article, I've stuck with the basic edits until I learn more about the process and resolve this one first. I truly want to avoid this type of reaction with future major edits. ScoringGoals14 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, it was after a long round of new articles patrol. Benboy00 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. -- Trevj (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne&oldid=1249259978"