426:
who wrote a rather silly article. I put up with it for a year or so, then rewrote a very POV/WP:OR peice as a newbie that was quickly reverted. As I slowly learned the ropes I deleted the junk, added the most important factoid of notability and a bunch of refs. But then I got more complaints and read
782:
I doubt they can be fixed. They range from lack of NPOV, to lack of
Notability, to CoI, etc. The page right now has many, many soap violations which would require a complete cleansing of the sources as they seem more about selling a product than actually dealing with references. The article would be
753:
What are they? Are they things that can't be fixed? The sources by
Milowent plus a few in the article seem to indicate that a decent article could be built. If people could be more specific about what these violations are or how they are defining third-part independent sources, it would help others
657:
has a few paragraphs devoted to her thoughts and activities.) I should have been more equivocal in my keep vote above, and mention that I'm assuming that some of those cites are to articles that focus on her a bit more, as there is one article (at least) that is cited in the article now (from 1984)
497:
I feel that people are voting on the quality of the article, not the notability of its subject. I agree that it is a badly written article (and probably does Ms Moore more harm than good), however among the sources there are a few that point to her possible notability, for instance reviews of her
546:
The fact that the article was created long before Carol Moore ever edited it herself dispells the notion (and arguments made) that this is about self-promotion. There is a significant amount of coverage on her as pointed out by
Milowent and along with the sources cited there,
636:. I never considered the "significant coverage in reliable sources" part of policy to mean "significant amount". The coverage is not significant. From what can be seen, she's mentioned in passing, as Milowent pointed out. She doesn't appear to have been the
602:
Perhaps the problem is in how we define "independent of the subject" in this case. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could yoy give me an example of a source cited there that you see as being one (if any), and another that you see as not being one?
216:
when taken in total and the other refs are primarily to things unrelated to the subject (organizations, events, etc). Merely promoting already famous ideas or being associated with notable organizations does not create
173:
80:
518:, and got a number of press mentions (including Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, Tortonto Star) from the mid 90s, unfortunately these mostly are pay-access articles. (some are not -
272:. I could go either way on this one. On one hand, the article as it currently stands appears borderline-lean-towards-delete, but I think it also might have potential for improvement.
653:
I agree that without examining the content of what's in the articles that came up
Milowent's search that the coverage of her we can read so far is of borderline significance. (Though
134:
167:
291:
516:
75:
582:, and suggest a long hard read of our inclusion, reliable sources and verifiability guidelines. Third-party sources independent of the subject means
480:
Promoting famous ideas of others or being associated with notable organizations does not create notability in general and RS's lacking.
331:
401:
My bad. There are 3, an article in depth, a list with him as one item, and a TV interview with him. But still much less than Ms Moore.
783:
best if it was just completely destroyed and, if there is ever any serious coverage of her life by notable sources, then is rebuilt.
804:
Does seem riddled with COI issues (the ref list smacks of a mission), but beyond that, this simply doesn't meet our standard at
107:
102:
17:
817:
792:
777:
746:
723:
695:
681:
658:
that seems to fit that the definition of significant coverage. I should confess that I'm something of an inclusionist though.
646:
626:
595:
574:
538:
507:
489:
472:
450:
436:
410:
396:
374:
365:
However there are enough secondary sources that discuss her, inculding at least one review of her book, to make her notable.
337:
306:
281:
264:
237:
59:
111:
188:
155:
94:
654:
526:
832:
54:
36:
831:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
700:
Long week hanging out with some hard-core (and selective) exclusionists. Thanks for laughter and remembrance.
640:
of any significant coverage. Promotional or not, the article doesn't satisfy inclusion criteria at this time.
387:
has exactly one secondary source with his own website providing 90% or so of the information in his article.
315:
One does not generate notability by writing about him/herself. This article needs to identify the subject in
149:
326:
503:
446:
432:
419:
406:
392:
370:
522:
349:
788:
742:
485:
302:
145:
641:
277:
49:
591:
195:
181:
813:
691:
534:
321:
209:
499:
442:
428:
402:
388:
366:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
204:
Article is on a non-notable political activist which has extensive editing by a party with a
784:
738:
481:
298:
226:
98:
273:
161:
587:
809:
805:
687:
530:
467:
222:
205:
384:
231:
213:
521:) I then did a search for "Carol Moore" and antiwar, and got some more mentions.
128:
755:
701:
659:
604:
552:
548:
218:
90:
65:
519:
353:
686:
LOL, you say that like its a dirty word. Inclusionist. OH THE HORROR! --
427:
COI carefully and swore off editing the article since
December 2008.
422:
and seems to be assumed here also. It was created by an anonymous IP
363:
Yes, she is a naughty WP editor for writing an article about herself.
229:
forms. For these reasons I believe this article should be deleted.
825:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
515:: I did a google news archive search for "Carol Moore" and waco
441:
Sorry. "When you assume you make an ass of you and me." :-)
466:
Solidly non-notable. Very, very little in the way of RS's.
808:; unnotable local activist with no claim to significance.
352:
page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion.
423:
124:
120:
116:
180:
529:(2005). Article needs reworking, but not deletion.--
383:
I hate to bring up "other stuff" but fellow activist
214:
WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view
418::I did not create the article about myself as was
81:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
835:). No further edits should be made to this page.
584:third party sources independent of the subject
348:: This debate has been included on the and
194:
8:
292:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
344:
286:
737:- many, many violations in this article.
754:to understand if they've misunderstood.
290:: This debate has been included in the
73:
7:
72:
212:issues. Most of the refs violate
24:
76:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore
523:passing mention in Baltimore Sun
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
818:20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
793:13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
778:03:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
747:02:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
724:19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
696:19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
682:19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
647:18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
627:19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
596:18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
575:17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
539:15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
508:15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
490:04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
473:03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
451:03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
437:03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
411:03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
397:02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
375:02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
60:02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
527:decent chunk of NYSun article
338:23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
307:00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
282:04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
265:01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
238:01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
420:asuumed on my user talk page
852:
498:books and news interviews.
828:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
71:AfDs for this article:
246:References should be
416:FYI from Carol Moore
208:and has significant
206:conflict of interest
350:DC Anti-War Network
44:The result was
356:
309:
295:
262:
250:the subject, not
843:
830:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
759:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
644:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
470:
334:
329:
324:
296:
261:
259:
234:
199:
198:
184:
132:
114:
57:
52:
34:
851:
850:
846:
845:
844:
842:
841:
840:
839:
833:deletion review
826:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
661:
642:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
468:
332:
327:
322:
255:
254:the subject. --
232:
141:
105:
89:
86:
69:
55:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
849:
847:
838:
837:
821:
820:
798:
797:
796:
795:
750:
749:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
650:
649:
630:
629:
599:
598:
577:
541:
510:
492:
475:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
413:
378:
377:
357:
342:
340:
310:
284:
267:
202:
201:
138:
85:
84:
83:
78:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
848:
836:
834:
829:
823:
822:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
800:
799:
794:
790:
786:
781:
780:
779:
776:
775:
752:
751:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
732:
725:
722:
721:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
679:
656:
652:
651:
648:
645:
639:
635:
632:
631:
628:
625:
624:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
573:
572:
550:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
514:
511:
509:
505:
501:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
474:
471:
465:
462:
461:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
341:
339:
336:
335:
330:
325:
318:
314:
311:
308:
304:
300:
293:
289:
285:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
266:
258:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
235:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
207:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
136:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
77:
74:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
827:
824:
801:
756:
734:
702:
660:
637:
633:
605:
583:
579:
553:
543:
512:
500:Steve Dufour
494:
482:skip sievert
477:
463:
443:Steve Dufour
429:CarolMooreDC
415:
403:Steve Dufour
389:Steve Dufour
385:Robert Parry
367:Steve Dufour
362:
359:
345:
320:
316:
312:
287:
269:
256:
251:
247:
243:
230:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
45:
43:
31:
28:
785:Ottava Rima
739:Ottava Rima
317:independant
299:Ron Ritzman
210:WP:YOURSELF
168:free images
91:Carol Moore
66:Carol Moore
274:SchuminWeb
257:Blanchardb
252:written by
219:notability
56:Wartenberg
588:Ironholds
513:Lean Keep
354:User:Ikip
319:sources.
810:Eusebeus
688:Milowent
655:this one
551:is met.
531:Milowent
525:(2009),
469:IronDuke
263:- timed
227:specific
135:View log
638:subject
495:Comment
270:Comment
244:Delete.
233:MBisanz
223:general
221:in the
174:WP refs
162:scholar
108:protect
103:history
806:WP:BIO
802:Delete
735:Delete
634:Delete
580:Delete
478:Delete
464:Delete
313:Delete
146:Google
112:delete
46:delete
333:Space
248:about
189:JSTOR
150:books
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
814:talk
789:talk
743:talk
692:talk
643:Lara
592:talk
549:WP:N
544:Keep
535:talk
504:talk
486:talk
447:talk
433:talk
424:here
407:talk
393:talk
371:talk
360:Keep
346:Note
328:From
323:Them
303:talk
288:Note
278:Talk
182:FENS
156:news
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
51:Jake
48:. —
297:--
225:or
196:TWL
133:– (
816:)
791:)
745:)
694:)
594:)
586:.
537:)
506:)
488:)
449:)
435:)
409:)
395:)
373:)
305:)
294:.
280:)
176:)
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
812:(
787:(
773:t
770:u
767:m
764:a
761:i
758:T
741:(
719:t
716:u
713:m
710:a
707:i
704:T
690:(
677:t
674:u
671:m
668:a
665:i
662:T
622:t
619:u
616:m
613:a
610:i
607:T
590:(
570:t
567:u
564:m
561:a
558:i
555:T
533:(
502:(
484:(
445:(
431:(
405:(
391:(
369:(
301:(
276:(
260:-
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
131:)
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.