Jump to content

Talk:Kim Wehle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Megalibrarygirl:, can you take a look at this and address the tag? The article still looks a bit ropey IMHO. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]
Yes, I'd feel much better if someone could find some secondary sources; I came up dry but didn't look under her maiden name. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 and Yngvadottir: I'll take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 and Yngvadottir: since she has some books coming out, there should be more coverage of her. Right now, I'm not finding anything in the databases. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; as a tenured professor of University of Baltimore School of Law, she meets WP:PROF and has hits in Google Scholar such as (this), although not much in the way of citations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe she squeaks by (although she doesn't have a named chair); I don't at all want to take away from her successes. But the lack of third-party refs is really disturbing. (I also think there's some padding by repetition, not only between the lead and the body with respect to where she's published/been interviewed, but also in her career, and I'd particularly like to get Whitewater down to a mention in passing. But the lack of dates made me reluctant to try cutting.) I hope those books get some reviews. Thanks for looking, Megalibrarygirl. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing, tone

[edit]

I find the further edits to this article by Catscott17, the article creator, to have unbalanced it still further with promotional language and unreferenced material, while not remedying the lack of independent references. I've made a quick fix, including hiding unreferenced personal information, but since Catscott17 admits to being a confidant of some sort of the article subject, I'd like further eyes on the matter. It may be that we can simply cut it back drastically on the assumption that reviews of the forthcoming books will enable reexpansion based on those references. Or maybe Catscott17 can find us some existing press via their knowledge of what was published where and when. Otherwise, I'm tempted to AfD this as too soon, until the books have actually made a splash. Pinging Ritchie333 and Megalibrarygirl. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]