Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia McConnell

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia McConnell

Patricia McConnell (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)

WithdrawnUnsourced hagiographic BLP created by a COI editor acting under the instruction of the subject, per this Help desk post Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Even though "AFD is not cleanup", cleanup has nevertheless been done resulting in a marginally acceptable stub. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that the "Find Sources: Book" above (When altered to Patricia B. McConnell) gives over 2,000 hits, I'd say there is room for a Patricia McConnell article, but of course it may not be this one.Naraht (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's why I nominated it, the page needs
  WP:TNT or a return to draft/sandbox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't think "return to draft/sandbox" is an option. It wasn't entirely created by the COI, just greatly expanded. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_McConnell&oldid=557496685 is more or less your every day article in need of external references.Naraht (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, reverting and tagging for fixes is probably the better option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a "repair" has been attempted but the result is still not an acceptable article, the only reasonable remaining option is to delete it. (Note: I am the nominator so this should not be regarded as an additional !vote.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Highly promotional, no acceptable references. If the subject is notable, a proper article should be written - this one just gets in the way of that. Maproom (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hate to do this to a fellow Wisconsinite, but, Delete without prejudice. A proper article may be possible; this ain't it. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume that the nominator's link to this Help desk post was intended to be to this Help desk post? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG Subject is notable enough in spite of the painful article. If the article is kept this awful draft stays in edit history, but the person is notable. Can we just make it a stub and keep that? It seems wrong, this article, that it is so badly written, but I don't think we should delete notable topics, OTOH I do not want to be the one voting to keep this. . MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:PROF, and I see no evidence that the book is notable. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Which on of her books is the one you refer to as "the book"? Most of the books listed are published by the subject's own company. Aiui an "adjunct professor" is a fairly junior lecturer position, so doesn't pass
  WP:PROF. Depending on the notability of the awards she has received they might be sufficient, but most are unsourced in this article. I still think deletion is the best option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Pure promo and books appear to be self-published. Agree that
  WP:TNT applies. Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment: I trimmed the hagiography and added some references. It's now short, and dependent upon her faculty bio page at the university, but that's true of many academic bio articles. It's still a poor article, but I don't think there's any need to delete it. TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TheMightyQuill did a nice cleanup of the promo material and as a number of commenters above have noted she is notable for her books and radio program. I added a couple refs, one to a journal article by her and one to a Knight-Ridder piece about her book: The Other End of the Leash. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nice clean-up job. Pax 07:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent work in making a decent article of it. Notable, tho not a an academic. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (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.