Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Trimble

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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Trimble[edit]

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

Fails both WP:Author and WP:Prof. Trimble has no substantial body of work that has been reviewed in multiple independent sources neither is she notable as an academic. An internet search produces only the second cited source and this concedes she has not written much poetry. The other two offered sources simply quote her. NotAJF (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. User:NotAJF started the nomination at the talk page but did not create this page. I'm copying their comments here and placing the log entry. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred: I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. The reporting editor has made eleven edits only, prior to bringing this case, all of a minor nature to the same article. I suggest that was in order to reach autoconfirmed status- without which he could not launch this. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR either. Department chair at an institution with a fairly mediocre reputation. I found a website with one of her poems on it, but no independent significant coverage of her work. She was a fellow of the Cave Canem Foundation, but it seems that this simply refers to being admitted to a retreat, and hundreds of African American poets have done the same. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real notability claim either and lots of WP:OR. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I don't care whether this article is deleted or not, but the statement that there's "lots of WP:OR" is rather odd. You think I rang her up and interviewed her? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, turbo. I made no statement about your motivation, as you are clearly implying. What I referred to was WP:OR content: non-obvious information having no citation, such as her employment history ("she headed the Department of Languages and Literature at Huntingdon College"), is ipso facto WP:OR. You can remove this if you wish...it's a peripheral issue. The real problem is lack of notability: there are only a few citations and they have only trivial mentions of Trimble (including one that calls her "prestigious" using scare quotes). Moreover, the standard sources don't show any impact of her work, e.g. WorldCat lists her new book (no holdings), her dissertation (1 holding), and her book "Marty and the Million Man March" (2 holdings). This is not the fodder of WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't think you were questioning my motivation- I just couldn't see how OR got into the article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have grave suspicions about this nominator; this nomination and the edits leading up to it seem trollish. I can't really defend this article tooth and nail though I will try and beef it up. In the meantime, thanks to Xanthomelanoussprog for writing it up in the first place. Agricola44, Xantetc. is right: that's not original research. The nominator's comment that "some references just cite her"--yeah, maybe, but they also establish various biographical facts, which is what we do here. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Julian L. McPhillips misspoke in his autobiography when he said she was chair of the English Department. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing better for the applicable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 23 April 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.