Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Schorr

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 delete. Consensus seems to lean to the direction that the coverage is not enough for GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Schorr

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

Utterly nn. Fails GNG. Has a non notable job in academia. Chairs a non notable event. Trivially, it is said she is the inspiration for the song by R.E.M. (Don't Go Back to) Rockville. That is not notability per INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's definitely mentions in books and coverage by local Brandeis University press... Just another example of someone who's interesting and accomplished but doesn't quite meet our basic criteria. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor more administator than academic. Nothing about her is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While not notable solely as an administrator, the collection of coverage of that role and the dozens of pubs covering her involvement with the REM folks, inspiring the Rockville tune (coverage spanning over 20 years) and her battle with cancer (Boston Globe) add up to passing WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the answer to the question "what, specifically, is she notable for?" is a bit scattered, I think there's enough depth of coverage here for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This really looks like a WP:BLP1E situation to me. The only credible and well-sourced claim to notability that I can see here comes from her having been the girlfriend of Mike Mills and having inspired the (Don't Go Back To) Rockville song. That information is already adequately covered in the (Don't Go Back To) Rockville article. The cancer story from Boston Globe is not really about her. The story is about cancer patients turning in growing numbers to alternative medicine remedies. She is just one of the subjects they used for the story. I don't think this kind of coverage contributes to notability per WP:GNG. Similarly, if after a natural disaster, such as the current floods in Louisiana, some national newspaper decides to run a story of how that disaster affected the lives of several ordinary people, that kind of coverage would not contribute to their notability, IMO. So at the end of the day this case still looks to be a WP:BLP1E one to me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; music trivia mention as to a REM and their song can be stated in their article. Kierzek (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is a WP:BIO1E. The sources by Brandeis Univ. Press are not really independent for the purpose of notability. The reason why the subject is notable is because of the song which is adequately covered in another article. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2016 (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.