Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Moore
- 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.â
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nicole Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) â (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single event, per WP:BLP1E - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. This desperately needs a rewrite. But Moore has apparently become notable for work on behalf of shark conservation, too: . So, maybe it's not quite a BLP1E. It's still shark-related, but not for the reasons one might expect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, rewrite. An inherent problem is COI, since the Wikipedia article has been created by the author of a newly released book on Ms. Moore. The article's tone seems designed to sell books. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did some copy edits for tone. It's a bit more presentable now, but I agree that the book tie-in seems a bit suspicious. The book itself got a little bit of coverage, too: from the Orangeville Banner (a local newspaper), from CTV News, and from The Hamilton Spectator. I'm curious to see if other people this is enough for significant coverage when you also include the sources about the shark attack itself, the conservation, and the motivational speaking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good sleuthing, but IMO this still falls under WP:BLP1E, as her post attack activities are not notable yet. If at some point that happens the article can easily be recreated ... WP:CRYSTAL - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did some copy edits for tone. It's a bit more presentable now, but I agree that the book tie-in seems a bit suspicious. The book itself got a little bit of coverage, too: from the Orangeville Banner (a local newspaper), from CTV News, and from The Hamilton Spectator. I'm curious to see if other people this is enough for significant coverage when you also include the sources about the shark attack itself, the conservation, and the motivational speaking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Unless I am doing something wrong, only 5 libraries in the world has this book? I'm leaning towards Delete because I just see nothing inherently notable about being bitten and working to save sharks. Maybe there are better sources or I am doing something off... DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete mainly per WP:BLP1E -- samtar whisper 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - single event; post-shark authorship of relatively obscure book is non-notable. Neutralitytalk 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Moore is not the author of the book, the book is about her, thus it actually enhances notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I don't really understand the convoluted rules that govern deletions, however, aren't we trying to build a resource for readers? Have a look at the stats that show readers have been looking for unbiased information about this for some time. I also want to thank the creator of this article for trying to enter our hostile environment. I hope they are not discouraged. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
- Comment The guidelines aren't especially convoluted. As has been noted above, usually people are not considered notable for having been involved in a single incident. Viewer statistics are changeable, and aren't a metric for considering long term notability. Not to sound cynical, but the article's creator is a strong example of WP:COI, having written this to coincide with the publication of his book. That there are concerns about the article would be expected. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
