Talk:Karen Franklin

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 26 October 2015, see discussion.
delete, July 26 2014, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Refloated

Please note there are many new sources to this revamped version (deleted over a year ago) that I think she well meets the WP:GNG in terms of sources, publishing history, awards, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what RS's change subject to notable?

As a reminder, the decision to delete this article was UNANIMOUS, except for the single editor who is trying to re-instate the article in violation of that clear consensus.

That said, new RS's come out in the world, and notability changes. But what exactly has changed with this one? As was already said in the deletion discussion, media mentions are all well and good, but do not meet WP:PROF. Changes/improvements to the quality of the article are also fine, but AfD's are not (were not) based on article quality. Despite the claims of the single hold-out of an editor, no new RS has been added that would answer the problems already discussed at the AfD.

Please list exactly what new RS's now meet PROF, or (if going for GNG) what exactly has changed that did not meet GNG before but does now?

In the absence of that, this re-float seems merely like a violation of the (again) otherwise unanimous consensus. Barcaboy2 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much improved article, with excellent references; the old article which had been AfD-ed lacked the good sources. If you feel this article is unworthy, feel free to AfD it, but a quick glance at the references and content will show that this subject easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... there have been significant improvements with new references and the former subject should never have been deleted in the first place. The previous supposed "unanimous" voting for deletion was mostly based on reviewers looking at the previous ill-referenced version. I believe that what is really going on here is one academic deleting the articles of academics with opposing viewpoints, not deleting based on the merits of the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes within references

They are a courtesy to facilitate the verification of references. Truncated quotes are helpful for readers wanting to learn more without having to fish out the exact text from the source; at the same time, we truncate the quotes to avoid copyright issues. A guideline is ...Long quotations may also be hidden in the reference or as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability... and also ...A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference...... Further, if the link to the reference becomes a dead link (which happens over time) the quote within the reference might give more assurance that the reference had been genuine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]