Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination)
per  by an anonymous IP may be the least persuasive !vote ever, but here it is. This article does not meet the letter of  but it does meet the spirit. The book by Elizabeth Belcham would constitute  in a secondary source (multiple sources are generally expected, but not required) if it satisfied one of the exceptions at , particularly "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." Belcham, as a professional archivist with over twenty years experience in her field, is an established expert in her field in my opinion and she is not being used to source extraordinary claims -- in fact, the ordinariness of her claims appears to be the problem cited by many proposing deletion. However, I can find no evidence that she has been published in a third party publication, so the wikilawyers will win this one. I submit, however, that her archival experience satisfies the spirit of alternative indicia of expertise and reliability recognized by the policy. Deleting these articles will in no way improve the encyclopedia. Special:Contributions/24.151.116.12|24.151.116.12
— [[User talk:24.151.116.12|talk]]), 23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:IAR||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RSSELF (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules)