Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene A. Eilers Koenig: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:13, 10 April 2013

Marlene A. Eilers Koenig

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

Someone created this Wikipedia entry without my permission. I do not wish to be in Wikipedia. Period. Please remove my entry. I have no desire to be included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (Mrs.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenekoenig (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly looking at the merits of the article, it fails WP:GNG. The sources do not cover the subject in depth. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because of the subject's request, but because of the article's failure to meet the general notability guideline as mentioned above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just please remove it .. I did not ask for a Wikipedia entry. There is more information on my book jackets ...but I do not wish to be associated with this site. My students are not permitted to use Wikipedia ... and I do not wish to included. Remove me NOW. No debate. I have the right to be excluded, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenekoenig (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As discussed, a subject doesn't have a right to demand that she's not included because she doesn't like Wikipedia, Wikipedia doesn't need her permission, and there will be a discussion here. There are a lot of links to the article, which suggest that she's being used as a WP:SOURCE. As such, it may be worthwhile to help explain the source, especially if the source is her blog. A widely published and cited author, I'd lean towards keep actually. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search indicated her work was cited in some 100 articles or more (biographies of royals) before the biography was written, not all are linked to the article. Her book Queen Victoria's Descendants from 1987 is the standard reference on this topic and widely used as a source on the genealogy of the British Royal Family. She has coverage in third party sources, most recently[1]. I think she clearly meets the criteria and the article would be useful especially because so many articles cite her work. The only reason to delete the article would be her wish to have it deleted. On the other hand, if you publish books and become an established expert on some topic, you will often have to accept that there is coverage of you in other media (eg., she probably didnt ask the individuals covered in her books for permission to include them either). Vinson wese (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is also cited in many books by other authors in her subject area, royal genealogy, as indicated by a Google book search (note that she was formerly known as Marlene Eilers only). Many of those books are also well-known books by well-known authors. Works citing her include Helen Rappaport's biography of Queen Victoria, the Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy, Burke's royal families of the world, works by Greg King (author), etc. etc. She is a well-known figure internationally in royal genealogy. Vinson wese (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *'''Comment''' As discussed, a subject doesn't have a right to demand that she's not included because [[criticism of Wikipedia|she doesn't like Wikipedia]], Wikipedia doesn't need her permission, and there will be a discussion here.   There are a lot of links to the article, which suggest that she's being used as a [[WP:SOURCE]].  As such, it may be worthwhile to help explain the source, especially if the source is her blog. A widely published and cited author, I'd lean towards '''keep''' actually. [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 *Comment: A Google search indicated her work was cited in some 100 articles or more (biographies of royals) before the biography was written, not all are linked to the article. Her book ''Queen Victoria's Descendants'' from 1987 is the standard reference on this topic and widely used as a source on the [[genealogy of the British Royal Family]]. She has coverage in third party sources, most recently[http://www.storybox.gr/index.php/culture/music/867-parousiasi-ton-tragoudion-tis-eurovision-2013-11-dania]. I think she clearly meets the criteria and the article would be useful especially because so many articles cite her work. The only reason to delete the article would be her wish to have it deleted. On the other hand, if you publish books and become an established expert on some topic, you will often have to accept that there is coverage of you in other media (eg., she probably didnt ask the individuals covered in her books for permission to include them either). [[User:Vinson wese|Vinson wese]] ([[User talk:Vinson wese|talk]]) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
+*She is also cited in many books by other authors in her subject area, royal genealogy, as indicated by a Google book search (note that she was formerly known as Marlene Eilers only). Many of those books are also well-known books by well-known authors. Works citing her include [[Helen Rappaport]]'s biography of Queen Victoria, the ''Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy'', [[Burke's Peerage|Burke's royal families of the world]], works by [[Greg King (author)]], etc. etc. She is a well-known figure internationally in royal genealogy. [[User:Vinson wese|Vinson wese]] ([[User talk:Vinson wese|talk]]) 22:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)