Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 9

9 June 2008

Anya Kamenetz

Anya Kamenetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD closed before five days on minimal discussion by non-admin shortly after I revised my deletion proposal. He suggested I ask for deletion review rather than undo his edit. My current proposal is to move the page to Generation Debt and reverse the direction of the redirect. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse my closure, as two established users supported the retention of this article, and no users besides the nominator supported its deletion. Furthermore, the citations provided by Captain-tucker provided compelling evidence that one of Anya Kamenetz's books has been the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability (and, by extension, the notability of Anya Kamenetz herself) pursuant to our general notability guideline. The timing of the closure was correct, as the AFD discussion was initiated on June 4, 2008, and closed on June 9, 2008, approximately five days later. The exact hour at which the discussion was closed today would almost certainly not have affected the outcome. John254 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note. The editor that closed this AfD prematurely has a history of doing so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore. I do not state this as a personal attack and I am sure he is a fine editor. I only wish to explain my dissatisfaction with an early and apparently pointless closing of a debate that had not finished. My account is pseudonymous but not a sockpuppet (see my talk page) and although I cannot make an appeal to status as an 'established user' under this identity, I am not an untrustworthy editor myself. There was not yet a decisive Keep consensus on this AfD. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability determined by obit in New York Times and LA Times, and court case, she is one of the wealthiest women in US history Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation but the deleted article may just have been a copy of an old Time Magazine article about her: [1] --Rividian (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of non-notable folks have had obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, some of them were also very wealthy. Mother is notable, daughter is not and is already noted in Hetty Green. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't the best or the smartest, its when the media takes notice of you and publishes information on you. I think you are confusing a "death notice" with an obituary. Both papers carry death notices for locals, but when both publish obituaries, you are notable. Save the fastest and smartest for Guinness World records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, please see WP:N for why Wikipedia's take on this may not be the same as yours. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell people that the answer is in the Bible, quote a chapter and verse. Wikipedia notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Not the Guinness World records version of notability which is the smartest richest, or fastest. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What you two are arguing about is neither here nor there... WP:N is not a criteria for speedy deletion. If this article did assert importance (such as extreme wealth) it should go to AFD, unless it was a copyvio. --Rividian (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)