Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Marshall (writer)

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Marshall (writer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. She is just the spouse of a former governor who wrote a book that is not particularly popular. Was leaning toward a speedy delete but figured there might be discussion. PrairieKid (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you know that because.... Well, how do you know that? Have you, for example, looked to see how widely her book was reviewed? At her magazine writing career? At news coverage of every house she and her spouse buy or sell? Perhaps a WP:BEFORE search might be in order before dismissing a female writer as "just the spouse of a former governor who wrote a book that is not particularly popular."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC) (Sometimes I lose patience.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woh, woh, woh. I would just remind you of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. I did look; or, at least, I looked at what was important. I do not see why the houses she buys and sells matter (not that I find coverage for that anyway) and she has not done much notable writing. Nearly every article I find she is discussed only in relation to her husband or in a niche source because of her book which sold few copies. Perhaps rather than pointedly accusing me of not being diligent, you could instead recommend some sources or information you have found which you believe make her WP:NOTABLE...? PrairieKid (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is a two-way street. After reading your nomination, and before writing that comment, I did a WP:HEYMANN upgrade to the page. More can still be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see enough notability in that article. Thus far, she is Bill Weld's wife. She was married to the son of a Washington Post editor. And she wrote a book and did a book signing in the same location and during the same week as Hillary Clinton. I found but little more than that myself. And none of those point to notability. I genuinely appreciate your work here to save the article--I am just looking for something more. She seems far away from being significant enough. PrairieKid (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." In other words, even if all coverage of an individual is of their role qua spouse, the individual can have a free-standing article if coverage is sufficient. Nom appears to not be aware of this policy. Article can certainly be expanded with a discussion of her writing. But Nom and others should be aware that even spouses with no independent achievement, say, Jeanette Rubio, or Todd Palin, can be notable by our standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article lists 7 long, signed, book reviews all in mainstream media like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep per WP:AUTHOR due to the book with multiple reviews. At the very least, a redirect to her book would be an alternative to deletion. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Article has been WP:HEY sourced, expanded with book reviews, news articles Who Is Bill Weld's Wife? She Has Serious Credentials As A Writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The section about the subject's personal life in the text currently runs more than three times as long as the text about her career. This is simply unacceptable. (I know, I know.) -The Gnome (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that moment in the early fall of 2016 when it actually looked not inconceivable that Libertarian Gary Johnson had a shot at the White House? And, therefore, that Leslie Marshall might move into the Naval Observatory. It generated press. We do keep articles about political spouses who get WP:SIGCOV. SIGCOV, in Marshall's case, includes having written a novel that was very widely reviewed. The section on the novel could be expanded from the many book reviews on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. My point, though, was entirely unrelated to WP:INHERITED. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR - those are substantial reviews of the book, whether positive or not, plus a substantial article about her as the wife of a candidate. The article can be expanded to include commentary or quotes from the reviews; it should not be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Oh, and yes, WP:BEFORE not done. FOARP (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. lots of info onboard. Mgbo120 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (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.