Talk:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan

Notability

MurielMary, I am under the impression that per WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 and 4, Greenspan is notable and the draft should not have been rejected:

(3): The person has created... a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (plenty of reviews in both books)

(4): The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (both books won "significant critical attention")

I would like this to be re-evaluated if possible or please let me know what else I can do to improve the article - thank you. Fergyman (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The draft has NOT been rejected, it has been declined, you need to add more in-depth coverage of her to establish notability, a few book reviews doesn't really doesn't amount to "significant critical attention". Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Could you link to some policy to justify your statement. From my understanding, you are wrong, she passes notability by both criteria three and four above. And your refutation, in which you state your opinion that the reviews don't justify "significant critical attention" (which doesn't really even make sense), only covers criteria four, there are no objections to be made on criteria three. She is notable and the draft should not be rejected unless you know of some policy we are missing. I had asked others about this before and they were on board. WP:Women in Red and User:David Eppstein everyone agreed that she is notable prior to any draft being made. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

She may well be notable but unless the draft clearly establishes this it won't be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fergyman: Please rewrite biography section including quotes from The End of the Certain World. There are multiple sources that call the book the definitive biography of Max Born that makes it significant. Use at least two different review articles to justify the statement. Then, there would be no valid reason to reject the draft as it would EXPLICILTY qualify under criteria three above. I regret not moving my draft to the main space, there would have been an exactly 0% chance anyone would have questioned it, I will never come near AfC again, this is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: I added a Critical Acclaim section to bolster Greespan's contributions. If everything looks good I will resubmit per Theroadislong request at the bottom of this discussion.

AFC is largely run by the reviewers as a honeypot to attract spammers and keep their efforts out of the main article space. Avoiding it for legitimate article creation is the correct decision. Also to be avoided: advising would-be new editors at editathons to use draft space. Write it offline or in userspace and get an experienced editor to promote it directly. The harder-to-deal-with problem is the interaction between draft space reviewers' tendency to reject everything and then delete it as soon as they can, and new-page-patrollers' tendency to move new articles into draft space. Best avoided, again, by keeping new articles offline or in userspace until they are so well-polished and obviously-notable that NPP can't do that. Anyway, back to Greenspan: the way I've typically used to show that book authors are notable through WP:AUTHOR is to use a referencing style that groups many book reviews together into bulleted lists. See Gloria L. Main (currently under AfD but headed for a likely keep) for an example. Searching Google Scholar and JSTOR for academically published reviews can help, although I think the major-newspaper ones you've already listed should count for more. Make sure only to include reliably published reviews, not blogs, in part because WP:BLP requires that but also to avoid giving the article-reviewers an excuse to question them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems ready for moving to main space if anyone wants to submit again? Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Paid Edting Banner removed

UPE requires a reason for placement 180.244.233.101 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

And as I said in my edit summary when placing the tag: this article was created by an editor associated with the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IntermezzoMan UPE farm. But it's not suspicious at all that IPs from Switzerland and Brazil have suddenly taken an interest in this, now, is it? GeneralNotability (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree about this not being suspicious – on an unrelated note, GeneralNotability, any idea where one can buy some good unblocked proxies these days? Everything I can find is pretty expensive for the small-time sockring I have in mind. Asking for a friend. Blablubbs|talk 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, do you know which airline I can use to get from Brazil to Indonesia in 40 minutes? Blablubbs|talk 23:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I am tired defending this page, but I must say that if the editor was paid to edit this page by Nancy Greenspan, then she is apparently not very bright, as there isn't a lot of pizazz here and I had been planning on creating the page for a while after creating pages for two of her books. Instead of me creating it, though, a new user asked me for help running it through AfC, and I even asked help of others more experienced than me. Even if the person was paid, they made a bland page that follows guidelines and requires no cleanup. @GeneralNotability: did you even read the article? It would take like 30 seconds, there is no biased information. It had to take you longer to look up everyone's IP addresses than it would for you to read it. WP:Ignore all rules, the only thing that actually matters is the improvement of the encyclopedia. By adding the article, multiple red-links were eliminated and the encyclopedia was improved. By discourage readership of the page with the banner, even potentially implying that the articles on her books may be biased as well, you had exactly the opposite effect. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

My name is Anthony Sumpter and Nancy is my Aunt. I have shown her this article and she has no idea even why she is on the site. At her advanced age, she is unaware of the honor someone gave her by writing the article. I am not familiar with Wikipedia and your policies but at this point, we feel that if the accusations message remains at the heading of her page that we prefer it just be deleted or removed from your platform. Thank you.