Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maura Stone

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. Closing as delete rather than soft delete as the nom makes very strong arguments and presents clear evidence of a thorough BEFORE, and no one has raised any dispute to their arguments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Stone

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

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

I came across this while trying to clean out the amount of pages that listed Reader's Favorite (a vanity award and pay review site) as a source. I initially thought that this author was notable and did a general cleanup. Original state can be seen here.

Long story short, the reviews fall into a few categories. They are either self-published blog sites or they're sites that offer to sell authors their services, be it vanity awards or reviews. The National Indie Excellence Award is almost certainly a vanity award. Authors must pay to enter ($75) and literally hundreds of people are given awards, meaning that you're guaranteed to receive an award as long as you pay their fee. See some of the comments here about it. In the pre-cleaning state it mentions a review from Harriet Klausner, however that's not really a good source since there is a lot of skepticism about whether or not she actually read the books she reviewed. Some stated that she read the first chapter or few pages, then reviewed based on that.

The Midwest Book Review is dubious at best, as they're now a pay review site. I can't ascertain whether these reviews were ones that were purchased or not, so I left them up. However because MBR does do paid reviews, this makes their reviews suspect and as such, I don't see these as good RS. The other link is to a paper, which is good, but it's not enough on its own to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was some content added to the article, claiming that the deletion is censorship since Stone supports Trump and his assertions that there was election fraud. Because this is unsourced, original research, and most importantly far from the truth, I've let the people at
WP:BLP/N know to keep an eye out on the article so they can remove any similar claims. (IE, not to ask them to contribute) FWIW, I wasn't really aware that she supported Trump and don't really care about that - what I care about is coverage. When I searched I would find cases where she was brought on to discuss a topic, however she was never the focus of those media spots nor was her work. In order for appearances to count towards notability she would have to be the focus of those pieces and it would have to be in depth. Even then, I'm aware that a large portion of Wikipedia would see these as interviews and as such, a primary source. I do think that there's a case to be made about some interview appearances asserting notability, as the individual would have to have some level of notability to be interviewed, but I'm also aware that these are weaker sources than say, a review or newspaper article. There just wasn't really anything out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage appears to clearly not qualify under
WP:GNG claims of witnessing electoral, um, somethings? Unfortunately, these all appear sourced to non-reliable sources and are therefor not applicable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (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.