Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Dowd Lambert

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 speedy keep because reason for nomination is wrong (the citations are absolutely independent of subject and also quite reliable). Also SNOW‎. SouthernNights (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Dowd Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The references shown here either lack independence from the subject or are book reviews of the subject's work and tell us nothing about the subject herself. We need evidence of substantive discussion of the subject (not her works) in multiple reliable independent published sources to retain this article. A loose necktie (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Wow. The nomination is beyond inappropriate. It is not accurate. It needs to be withdrawn by the nominator or at the very least part of it stricken.

I said she meets

talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow. It sounds like you are looking for a fight. I am not up for it. A loose necktie (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In cases such as this one, when it's been pointed out you were, at best, unaware of subject-specific notability guidelines and did not complete the required

WP:BEFORE

, you may be more comfortable not responding. That's okay.

Mischaracterizing sources and scope of the article in a nomination statement is a problematic. Problematic nomination statements should, can, and will be called out. However, curiously echoing my "wow" and then choosing to withdraw from the debate with what is treading close to incivility ("It sounds like you are looking for a fight") is... eh. @

talk) 11:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I'm seeing enough reviews for a solid pass of
  WP:SPS, or (better, and as in this article) by profiles in a bibliographic encyclopedia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep per WP:CREATIVE and nomination statement mischaracterizes article and sources. Problematic.
  talk) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets
  WP:Author. Thriley (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per
  WP:Author. ULPS (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per AUTHOR and a poor overall nom rationale; the books are enough to clinch her N and I would not hope we need so much detail about her life over her published works. And if you're not up to defend your nom at all, Loose, I suggest withdrawing it so we don't have to deal with any further incommunication from that decision; you nominate, you defend and listen.
  chatter) 13:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The whole argument that book reviews "don't tell us anything about the author" makes no sense. People are noteworthy because of their accomplishments; an author's accomplishments are their books. XOR'easter (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]