http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Victoria_Pynchon_Article_-_Request_For_Deletion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20951114)

and

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1977323&mc=69&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20951138)

I looked at the page and its edit history and saw no evidence that Pynchon wrote the author, nor any evidence that the main contributor AuthorAuthor (talk · contribs) is Pynchon, either. If you plan on making accusations like that, you need some actual evidence. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Check out AuthorAuthor's profile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AuthorAuthor

It seems there was a suggestion that he pens biographies professionally.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20951359)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_Pynchon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20953731)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1977323&mc=71&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20954145)

one boomer at a time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20954632)

Whether Autoadmit begun this campaign to have the article reviewed for notability is irrelevant to whether Ms. Pynchon is notable or not. Ms. Pynchon may very well not be notable and it was only the attention garnered through AA (or through her post on her Forbes blog) that brought this to light. If you can make a persuasive argument to why she is notable to rebut any of the arguments above, please do so. The most notable thing about her right now seems to be that she was the subject of some minor controversy on a widely read legal blog (Paul Campos's Inside the Law School Scam).160.39.53.61 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20954690)

Comment Victoria Pynchon would probably prefer that the page be deleted now. Her reputation has been trashed on the internet now by the Paul Campos comments on "Inside the Law School Scam". Victoria Pynchon is an average lawyer who made the mistake of shilling for low ranked law school despite massive evidence that they are a huge mistake these days. Her detractors clearly realized that her Wiki page is merely a resume and doesn't deserve to exist, so they decided to focus on that as a point of attack. So be it. They are correct, the Wiki page is just a resume. It deserves to be deleted. The detractors are corrrect. Cattleprod1 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20956906)

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20956965)

WIKIPEDIAN

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957174)

"quiet quiet, I can't think rationally if you keep arguing"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957191)

looks like xo wins?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957222)

Strong keep, per the fact that IP and SPA hounds organised off-site for the purpose of trolling. The subject meets all the notability requirements I've checked up on. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

instead of trying desperately to salvage his article maybe the author should explain why he thinks she is notable.

Comment I've cleaned up the article some. Added Newsday source/citation. Rermoved resume-like material -- still working on it, Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957305)

1) XOXO is mean and they invaded are wikipedia

2) the original author thinks pynchon is "interesting" which only proves how much of an idiot the original author is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957316)

http://solopracticeuniversity.com/faculty/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957369)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SCHOLAR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20957370)

Is this not proof positive that authorauthor is VP?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20958045)

EDIT: srsly man delete all your ranting comments. the more there are the more they are disinclined to care about whether it is notable or not. let authorauthor dig himself deeper.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20958187)

Anything is possible but the strong circumstantial evidence is that authorauthor = VP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20958526)

could be an aspie who email her to get her life story or something.

either way running in there and ranting isn't going to help anyone. this article fails because she just isn't notable under their guidelines. period.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20958624)

attorneys are quoted in news articles all the time. there are a million circle-jerking trade publications willing to "profile" lawyers- that's what they do.

find a lawyer who's been practicing for 20+ years. i guarantee he is quoted all the time in his local/regional rag, once every few years in the big metro paper, and has probably had a few "profiles" done about him.

i can name lawyers who've handled billion dollar deals and multi-district litigation, federal D.CT judges, and law professors who have had their shit cited widely by cnn/abc/nbc who don't have individual pages. this lady is a regional mediation lawyer who is not well-known in her field but is a particularly adept self-promoter. she's not notable. full stop.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20961924)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_Pynchon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20963987)

at any rate, this shouldn't be the end. thoughts on the next course of action?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20964111)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victoria_Pynchon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20964148)

This page appears to have been created by Ms. Pynchon herself. It does not satisfy the notability requirement, as its contents describe nothing more than a garden variety attorney in career twilight. While the article states that Ms. Pynchon is known for the ForbesWoman "She Negotiates" blog, this blog is not noteworthy, and garners few views. It appears that Ms. Pynchon is deliberately holding herself out as a writer for Forbes, however this is not the case. Forbes permits anyone to operate a blog on their site, much like blogspot.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.140.134 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — 24.47.140.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

According to a contributor on Forbes, bloggers are paid. It is not a public blog like blogspot and wordpress; e.g., I could not find anywhere to "start a blog" on Forbes as you can do on blogspot. Instead, it seems more similar to The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page and its edit history and saw no evidence that Pynchon wrote the author, nor any evidence that the main contributor AuthorAuthor (talk · contribs) is Pynchon, either. If you plan on making accusations like that, you need some actual evidence. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I love your your reply sidesteps the notability issue. This woman is a nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.51.145 (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. The Victoria Pynchon article wreaks of self promotion. Have a look at authorauthor's profile. He/she has previously been alleged to have been a paid editor, specifically within the context of the Pynchon article (and a number of other advertisements that have been deleted). And regardless of whether or not the article was penned by a pro, the point stands that this article does not meet the notability requirement, and for that reason does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.140.134 (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Donde - This is a resume, not an article. Where are the in-depth 3rd party sources about her as the notability requirement calls for ? Please find some or else put this up for deletion, thanks 2604:2000:FFC0:61:7D4F:E18E:F843:81F1 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 2604:2000:FFC0:61:7D4F:E18E:F843:81F1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notability, notability, notability. How does this person meet the guidelines? There is nothing notable about this lawyer, she is just shamelessly self promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.71.231 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 69.132.71.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. She is a regular lawyer posting her resume. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.154.128 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 174.61.154.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Pynchon persists in deleting my neutral and factual account of the "Forbes: Is Law School Still a Golden Ticket?" section - the only section in this shameless self-promotion that may be worthy of remaining on Wikipedia. Nothing about her is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.21.65 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 196.25.21.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I looked through all the references, and many of them are self-published or unreliable. Of the few that are from reputable sources, some don't even seem to mention her name, and others are just database listings about the fact that she is accredited. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 07:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. There appears to be nothing notable about this person. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Only one of the external links is to a website run by someone other than Pynchon. Three of them are broken. The working links are to her Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, and personal blog. Her list of accomplishments is long, but this in and of itself does not constitute notability. For example, notability on law school faculty lists is usually only reserved for tenured law scholars with long publication records who are exemplary in their field- Pynchon is not tenured or a well-known scholar. None of her writings seemed to have been published in notable sources (notable enough to get their own Wiki page). The article mentions two law journals she was cited, not published in. Law journals often have hundreds or thousands of works cited per article, this is not notable. Her books have their own wiki page, created by the same authorauthor of her individual page. I would think this article could be salvaged if there was ONE substantial or significant event or fact about her life. The most notable things as far as I can tell are that she was profiled once in a trade journal, once moderated a panel with Gloria Steinem, and got into a spat with anonymous commentators on her personal blog. Even if notability could be established I think think the article would still need to be seriously cut. Her list of speaking engagements (none of which seem to be notable), list of admissions, and publications all seem like self-promotion.160.39.53.61 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Extensive sourcing demonstrates that the subject clearly meets the GNG. I will check the broken links that have been pointed out. NPR, The New York Times, and the Daily News are included as sources, which are not "self-published or unreliable" per a comment above. The discussion here seems to focus on whether she should be notable, which isn't really among the deletion criteria. I will improve the article, find more third-party sources, and cleanup what has been called resume-like. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but whether she is notable is absolutely central to whether the page should be deleted. Articles on non-notable people are deleted (see WP:N). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AuthorAuthor is correct is saying that the question of whether or not the subject should be notable is not a valid part of the deletion criteria. The question is whether or not the subject is notable. That said, I disagree with AA's assertion that much of this discussion focuses on the former, as most of the comments appear to address the latter point.--JayJasper (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are these sources to the NYT and NYDN? I cannot find them in the source list.160.39.53.61 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)— 160.39.53.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom. & others. Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. As others have noted, what mentions there are of her in reputable sources are generally trivial. Fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO.--JayJasper (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep. There appears to be an active campaign by AutoAdmit to take down Ms. Pynchon, as noted on their site, which includes the question "shouldn't the first order of business be to get her Wikipedia page deleted?" Here is the link. Here's another AutoAdmit's link about their campaign against Pynchon. It also appears the AutoAdmit members posted the controversy, which appears to have been started by anti-law school folks and bragged about on the AutoAdmit site, and now included in Ms. Pynchon's Wikipedia article. Are AutoAdmit campaigns allowed to accomplish their agendas and campaigns via Wikipedia by, for their own purposes, asking admins to nominate pages for deletion? Sobering stuff. Critiker (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether Autoadmit begun this campaign to have the article reviewed for notability is irrelevant to whether Ms. Pynchon is notable or not. Ms. Pynchon may very well not be notable and it was only the attention garnered through AA (or through her post on her Forbes blog) that brought this to light. If you can make a persuasive argument to why she is notable to rebut any of the arguments above, please do so. The most notable thing about her right now seems to be that she was the subject of some minor controversy on a widely read legal blog (Paul Campos's Inside the Law School Scam).160.39.53.61 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is irrelevant why the deletion nomination was started. The only real question is does the subject of the article meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I do not believe that she does. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

STRONG OWNED and STRONG DELETE There's nothing notable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehateme123 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Hehateme123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, although the subject has had brief mentions in multiple sources, some being self published sources, there hasn't been significant coverage of the subject herself to pass WP:GNG in my humble opinion. Additionally, although she appears to be published in a law review journal she does not appear to pass WP:SCHOLAR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, subject does not meet the notability requirements, all opposing views invoke mere collateral attacks and do not make any claim to stay that subject is actually notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.81.16 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — 108.86.81.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, subject does not meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.213 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Without commenting on the subject's notability or fitness for inclusion here, or lack of same, I am absolutely APPALLED at the obvious ganging up on this subject by an organized group from outside Wikipedia, and at the viciousness of the attacks on her at that site, apparently because she "drew the ire of the entire interwebs for her ridiculous encouragement of some idiot's fourth tier law school dream". The posters at that unmonitored comment site then encouraged each other to "googlebomb the living shit out of her" and "get her Wikipedia page deleted". I would like to see this nomination withdrawn, and then resubmitted with semi-protection, so that we can discuss this as Wikipedians instead of as the sounding board for an attack posse. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Victoria Pynchon would probably prefer that the page be deleted now. Her reputation has been trashed on the internet now by the Paul Campos comments on "Inside the Law School Scam". Victoria Pynchon is an average lawyer who made the mistake of shilling for low ranked law school despite massive evidence that they are a huge mistake these days. Her detractors clearly realized that her Wiki page is merely a resume and doesn't deserve to exist, so they decided to focus on that as a point of attack. So be it. They are correct, the Wiki page is just a resume. It deserves to be deleted. The detractors are corrrect. Cattleprod1 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Cattleprod1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I have been told that semiprotection is not appropriate, so I will try to evaluate the article on its merits. Note to the lynch mob: you are actually HURTING your cause by your wolfpack techniques. If you guys would back off and let the real Wikipedians take a look at the article, maybe we would agree with you that she is not notable. But this discussion is so thrashed by your mob attacks that it is hard to even consider the question rationally. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, on the merits: Weak delete. Most of what is found at Google News is written by her; the rest is people quoting her on some issue, which does not amount to "significant" coverage. Same at Google Books. No presence at all on Google Scholar. I conclude that she is not notable as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete Possibly the worst references I have ever seen. I removed some from the article that didn't even mention her. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep, per the fact that IP and SPA hounds organised off-site for the purpose of trolling. The subject meets all the notability requirements I've checked up on. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This is irrational. If anything, she wrote a link bait piece of Forbes that enraged a lot of people -- as was its intention -- and people googled her name and found a wiki page that looked to be written by a PR firm. They then started asking for deletion for failing to meet the notability requirement. Why does it gall you so much that people are correctly pointing out that per wiki policy, she shouldn't exist? Just because we don't have usernames? The issue is: does she meet the notability requirement. The issue is not: do the outsides have issues with the author. --68.59.51.145 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I've cleaned up the article some. Added Newsday source/citation. Rermoved resume-like material -- still working on it, Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment My opinion "weak delete" stands. Valedictorian of her junior high school? Come on! --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If that doesn't tell you that VP is editing her own page, what do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.51.145 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoever you are (we call you a special purpose account), this kind of accusation is not only uncalled for - it is stupid. If you knew anything about Wikipedia, you would readily be able to tell that User AuthorAuthor has been on Wikipedia for 4 1/2 years, editing and creating all kinds of articles, until he/she finally decided 3 months ago to create an article about Victoria Pynchon. As I said above, you are damaging your own cause with this kind of idiocy. If you look at the discussion, you will notice that experienced Wikipedians are weighing in on the merits and are mostly coming up with "delete". If you guys would just back off and let us apply Wikipedia guidelines, you might be happy with the result. But your continued attacks on the subject, and on the editors who dare to support the subject, are making it really hard to stay objective. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words "I don't like you guys coming to our playpen and causing trouble. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" VP is NOT notable in any way, shape, or form, and doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines for notoriety. Period. End of story. As far as I know, wikipedia is open to comment by anyone who wants to post here so stop stamping your feet and telling people where and when they can post. Apply the wikipedia standaards and spare us your rants and insults.Hehateme123 (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Melanie sorry if I don't know how to format this comment correctly but look two comments down from this (which I will c/p in case she deletes it: "Comment - Please read the newly edited article. I have added reliable sources/citations (Parade magazine, ABA Journal, etc.) and removed minor info (my apologies for including that info; it won't happen again). AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)") and explain how that doesn't positively prove that the editor 'authorauthor' is actually VP? Unless there's another reason she would be using "I" in her comments and apologizing.**** (previous unsigned comment was posted by 71.230.117.147) — 71.230.117.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am trying to assume good faith, as Wikipedia requires, but it is getting hard - can you really be this clueless? AuthorAuthor's use of "I" in that comment is clearly talking about himself/herself as author of the article - talking about the changes he/she made in the article ("I have added") and errors he/she made in writing it ("my apologies"). You might see my comment below, where I point out that "I" was the one who deleted something from the article. How else are we supposed to describe our editing actions, if not with "I" and "my"? --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"clueless" "idiocy" "stupid"...sounds like you have a lot to learn about impartiality. Stop posting insults on wikipedias pages and follow your own advice and dicuss the matter dispassionately..Hehateme123 (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines - writing a few articles and blogs is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.--Jiang (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Please read the newly edited article. I have added reliable sources/citations (Parade magazine, ABA Journal, etc.) and removed minor info (my apologies for including that info; it won't happen again). AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I also noticed that AuthorAuthor sanitized it by removing the only part that would make VP notable. The referance from Law Prof Paul Campos on 'Inside The Law School Scam' has been convieniently removed by AuthorAuthor. If the article is going to remain, relevant negative information will also remain. Stop trying to cover for Victoria Pynchon. She is an average lawyer and below average mediator. She has been identified as a law school shill that that will remain as part of her record now. I will be adding it back into the article. Do not remove it again. Cattleprod1 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC) • Cattleprod1 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please learn to be accurate in your accusations. AuthorAuthor did not remove that section; I did. [1] I removed it because it had no reliable sources - only opinion blogs and discussion boards. If you restore it, I will remove it again - unless you can find and add some coverage of this supposed controversy from Reliable Sources as Wikipedia defines it. You can find the definition of Reliable Sources at the link I just posted. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. There is nothing on this silly lawyer, Victoria Pynchon, except self written blogs and shameless self promotion. If anything is going to be on Wiki, it is going to be the bad along with the good. You are not going to be allowed to sanitize this shameless shill for 3rd and 4th tier law schools. Delete the entire page or allow the negative to remain with the BS. End of debate, you remove it, I will add it. Every single day Cattleprod1 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the "Three Revert Rule". If you get in an edit war over this, which means making the same edit over and over, you could be banned from posting at Wikipedia at all. This kind of editing dispute can only be settled by consensus input from other editors, and I will invite the other discussants here to look at the section (I linked to it in my previous comment) and see if there is anything there which is adequately sourced for a Wikipedia article. Here's a hint: the fact that somebody said something about a person on a discussion board is not adequately sourced for Wikipedia. Neither is the ranting of someone at an opinion blog. Find us published, reliable sources for this "controversy" and we can keep it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

By that standard, 98% of the Wiki page should be deleted because it is almost purely self authored opinion blog material submitted by Victoria herself. Cattleprod1 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep and close down this discussion until sometime in the future. I have no opinion as to whether the person is notable, but I do object to the witch hunt being run against her for personal purposes. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding bad sources Only add sources that are about her or written by her. A single line quote in a longer article is not a source about her. A research paper that mentions her as a source is not written by her. The low-quality sources reek of desperation and are not helping the quest to keep the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Instead of deleting the Parade citation, a national magazine, maybe "interviewed by" could have been changed to "quoted in," or a suggestion that it might be moved to external links. Also, being cited as a reference in a Harvard journal in the academic world is hardly "a research paper" that mentions her. MelanieN has set the pace here with her politeness and I'm trying to follow her lead, so I'm surprised by the tone of your comment. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Parade" quote fails notability in two ways. First, a single-line quote in any magazine does not establish a person as notable. Second, assuming Pynchon is notable, a single-line quote is a trivial part of her career and is not worth mentioning - this quote is of little importance to who she is. For the Harvard ref, instead of referencing the reference, why not reference the paper she wrote that was referenced in the first place? If you want to argue notability, put the Harvard paper in the talk page so we can see it, but it shouldn't be an article reference since it's not about her. And that is the issue with both - neither source is about her, and that's what is really needed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Understood, and point taken. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Put discussion on hold, I agree with 69.62.243.48 above. Let's put this on hold for a week or two and resume the discussion then. I know there's not really a policy behind this, but I'd say this is a clear case of ignore all rules. This discussion will go a lot better without all the AutoAdmit trolls. Remove the deletion discussion page from the article during the hold period. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree with user:69.62.243.48 and user:Donde. This discussion is hopelessly compromised. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply: You are the nominator, Donde, and you can unilaterally withdraw the nomination at any time. Unless you can state that you would have filed this AfD without the instigation of the people you are now calling "trolls," you're buying into the bad faith of it otherwise. Ravenswing 10:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How has the discussion been compromised? Because you are unable to filter out or ignore people trolling? This makes no sense at all. If an argument is made that has no merit, don't consider it. This whole "we need to shut the discussion down for now" is pure comedy. It's not like people are posting completely off topic.Hehateme123 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Putting this discussion on hold is nothing more than an attempt to censor Pynchon's critics. As already pointed out, Pynchon does not meet the notability requirements. It is quite clear that either she or someone close to her put this article up for promotional purposes (This isn't the first time that AuthorAuthor has been called out on putting up articles of non-notable people for promotional purposes - s/he appears to be running PR campaigns for several others on Wikipedia). The fact that the scambloggers, AutoAdmit, and others brought this article to the attention of Wikipedia is irrelevant. In addition to the above, I'd like to note that MelanieN and AuthorAuthor have deleted the only notable thing on the page about Pynchon: The fact that she was the subject of a minor controversy on a widely read legal blog (Paul Campos's Inside the Law School Scam). Pynchon has since removed comments from the Forbes.com post because (presumably) she's no longer willing to stand behind the words that she wrote. If the article is difficult to source, it's only because Pynchon made it so and because of the lame Wikipedia policy which does not allow citation to blogs (which effectively suppresses any internet-based notability that might arise). I will, however, restore the "‎Forbes: Is Law School Still a Golden Ticket?" section, but will remove some references that can no longer be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.21.65 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the God Damn double-speak. Everyone knows that you are on a crusade to censor everything you can about Pynchon. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep: Are you kidding? First off, there is zero evidence, none at all, supporting the unfounded and somewhat hysterical charge that the article creator is Pynchon herself. With over three thousand edits, it's plain that this isn't the typical COI SPA.

Secondly, the hysteria continues in the She's Not Notable! She's Not Notable! mantra. Quite aside from that I decline to take the word of anon IPs as to the subject's credentials as a mediator and attorney (and quite aside from that said credentials are not pertinent to this discussion), notability is first and foremost governed by the GNG, which holds that a subject who is discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources is presumed to be notable. The Los Angeles Daily Journal and Newsday articles suffice in of themselves, and nonsense cherrypicking along the lines of "Well, the Parade mention is just a sentence! Nyah!" are irrelevant smoke screens.

Finally, it is not only a proven fact that this is part and parcel of an organized campaign to delete this article, complete with WP:CANVASS violations, and as such is absolutely a bad faith nomination and must be closed at once. Why Donde permitted himself to be used as a stalking horse for it I don't know, but that reeks of poor judgment. Ravenswing 10:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the background on this nomination before insulting experienced editors. How about starting with the fact that the discovery of the Autoadmit trolls happened during this discussion. Had I known there was a crusade by an army of trolls, I would never have nominated this on their behalf, but the only way I reasonably could have known that was by being an Autoadmit regular. And having anything to do with Autoadmit is the real definition of poor judgement. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply:"There is zero evidence, none at all, supporting the unfounded and somewhat hysterical charge that the article creator is Pynchon herself" -- It seems that AuthorAuthor is running some sort of PR campaign on behalf of a specified few non-notable clients. As previously mentioned, AuthorAuthor has been called out on this before.

"The Los Angeles Daily Journal and Newsday articles suffice in of themselves" -- Oh really? So, anytime some attorney is featured in a newspaper column for publishing a book or paper or holding a talk, they're notable? Do you know how many attorneys publish articles, get featured in news papers, are heads of organizations, give speeches, etc.? The number is staggering. Let's put all of them on Wikipedia!!! Donde was absolutely justified in nominating this for deletion.

"[T]his is part and parcel of an organized campaign to delete this article" -- Again, irrelevant. I am not part of that campaign.

Keep. Article needs substantial pruning and depuffing, but subject appears to be at least minimally notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Although I am not a registered commenter and my opinions carry less weight, as well as being someone who first looked at the article after reading her post on Forbes, under my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (people) it does not seem that Ms. Pynchon is very notable. Although "garden variety attorney in the twilight of her career" is unnecessarily hyperbolic, my "gut presumption" is that Ms. Pynchon has 1) not one single notable accomplishment in her career to anchor the article, 2) not produced a body of work taken as a whole that would establish she is a notable practitioner. Although her accomplishments may seem interesting to AuthorAuthor, they are certainly not notable among the ranks of lawyers. Most big law firm partners, federal or state judges, high-level government lawyers, and tenured law professors would have accomplishments that are widely known or appreciated as being of substantial importance (leading billion dollar deals, writing influential opinions, representing notable individuals, or authoring articles published in print law reviews.) Having a moderately successful regional practice is not notable. Neither is being mentioned or quoted in articles- most attorneys are quoted or mentioned in news articles at some point in their careers as a natural result of their role in the justice system.

However, I understand that just because other arguably notable people are not on Wikipedia does not mean Ms. Pynchon is not notable. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." As currently constituted, Ms. Pynchon is not the "subject" of multiple sources. Most of the articles in the source list quote Ms. Pynchon, she is not the subject of them. The only article I can see that makes her the subject would be the profile in the Daily Journal- a legal trade publication. Most local or regional lawyers in private practice will have some profile done about them at some time. This in and of itself is not notable. Although she has co-authored two books, these do not appear to have been widely read or used in practice. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." From the information on the article it does not appear that Ms. Pynchon has received any notable awards from her work in mediation. Her accomplishments appear to be very minor. The sourcing does not provide enough info to suggest that her work on mediation is widely recognized by scholars or practitioners. Although lawyers do not explicitly fall under "creative professionals" she doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria in that section either. Based on just a reading of the Pynchon article, it appears the criteria for notability are extremely broad and could encompass most regional or local practitioners. I'm a young practicing lawyer. While in law school, I was fortunate to be the co-author of an article published in a flagship highly-ranked law review as well as part of a research team that wrote a major report published in multiple national mass-media outlets. I also hold a coveted professional position. Based on just reading this article, it appears my nascent career would qualify as notable. To me, that is facially absurd, and not a matter of good policy. Perhaps AuthorAuthor would like to add his perspective to the discussion. Why is Ms. Pynchon notable to you under Wikipedia guidelines?160.39.53.61 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete VP is NOT notable in any way, shape, or form, and doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines for notoriety. IN fact, as a lawyer or mediator, her career is well below average. She has not practiced seriously in decades, per her own admission in her writings on her blog. Why does this nobody have a Wiki page? Cattleprod1 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20978530)

Note that this comment was part of a personal crusade against the subject of the article by Autoadmit, a notoriously unmoderated discussion board. The comment may be safely disregarded. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20964424)

can't really articulate why, but she really came across as some sort of ugly fat bitch with no friends. very fag-haggish

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20964869)

http://www.amazon.com/review/RE5GWX8FPWMA2

Here's his linkedin

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-schend/a/352/3b4

Brian Schend

Civil Designer and EIT

Bellingham, Washington Area

Civil Engineering

Current

Civil and Designer at Anvil Corporation

Past

Civil Technician at WEB Engineering

Civil Designer at Anvil Corporation

Education

Bellingham Technical College

Western Washington University

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970882)

Indeed, I did look over the original request from those IPs to delete the article (and why, just out of curiosity, would you presume I had not?). Would you mind answering me this: have you ever seen a bunch of anon IPs, with nary an edit to their names, suddenly show up with reasons to delete an article such as "She's a nobody," and it be anything other than an organized dirty tricks campaign? Under what possible circumstances could you have imagined that this was a legitimate request? Did you review the talk page to find out if anyone had discussed the matter there first, as WP:BEFORE enjoins a nominator to do prior to a nomination? (As it happens, no one had.)

You were unhappy that, as an experienced editor, you felt I insulted you. I am unhappy that, as an experienced editor, you should have known better and exercised better judgment. Ravenswing 21:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dondegroovily

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20967020)

http://www.amazon.com/review/RE5GWX8FPWMA2

Here's his linkedin

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-schend/a/352/3b4

Brian Schend

Civil Designer and EIT

Bellingham, Washington Area

Civil Engineering

Current

Civil and Designer at Anvil Corporation

Past

Civil Technician at WEB Engineering

Civil Designer at Anvil Corporation

Education

Bellingham Technical College

Western Washington University

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970888)

Donde and MelanieN should have their editing and administrative privileges temporarily suspended until they receive training in professional behavior, and they should have no further involvement in the Pynchon matter. Their objectivity is now every bit as compromised as the AutoAdmit group's.

Recommendation 2:

Responsible administrators should promptly decide the issue of Pynchon's notability, and they should strictly limit their criteria to that issue. AutoAdmit's puerile behavior should be a non-factor in both the decision and in the speed with which that decision is reached.Pernoctus (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

PWNED, finally an admin who gets it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970688)

http://www.amazon.com/review/RE5GWX8FPWMA2

Here's his linkedin

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-schend/a/352/3b4

Brian Schend

Civil Designer and EIT

Bellingham, Washington Area

Civil Engineering

Current

Civil and Designer at Anvil Corporation

Past

Civil Technician at WEB Engineering

Civil Designer at Anvil Corporation

Education

Bellingham Technical College

Western Washington University

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970890)

http://schend.net/brian/about.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970909)

http://www.facebook.com/Clotho13

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970941)

Brian Schend's Education

Bellingham Technical College

AA, Civil Engineering Technology

2002 – 2004

Western Washington University

Bachelor's degree, music composition

1996 – 2001

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970952)

http://imgur.com/pb4iZ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20970905)

XO is hitting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victoria_Pynchon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20979463)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Complaint_About_Editors.27_Behavior_In_Victoria_Pynchon_Deletion_Discussion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#20988961)

what'd it say?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#21004310)

Under "writing" the article discusses her first book. The Wikipedia entry fails to state the whole title - "A is for Asshole: The Grownups ABCs of conflict resolution"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#21666874)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victoria_Pynchon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#25359395)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978683&forum_id=2#30230765)