Carole W. Troxler: The subject of this article contacted VRT about a paid-editing scammer who offered to improve it for a fee.  She said the article is full of errors and omissions, and she would prefer the article be deleted rather than paying the scammer.  After examining the sources, I am not convinced she meets WP:NPROF criteria for inclusion.  Several sources are merely announcements (from local papers, not national or even regional scope), many sources are not even about her, and three sources were written by her.  ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 02:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Women ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A peculiar way to go about an AfD.  Was any indication given on what these "errors and omissions" are?  Because the article has really basic (and verifiable) facts about her education and scholarship.  I can see nothing that would be factually incorrect and any "omissions" would be due to not having reliable source coverage of whatever is thought to be missing.  Though I am at a bit of a loss on what that might be.  Furthermore, considering the sources covering her frequently talk about her authorial publications and scholarship, I believe WP:NAUTHOR would apply more or, perhaps, Criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMIC .  Either way, here's sources I've found about her and her work after a cursory glance around.  Elon professor's book continues Regulator Movement debate - Times-News Sallie Stockard: Adversities Met by an Educated Woman of the New South - The Journal of Southern History Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina - The Journal of Southern History Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina - South Carolina Historical Magazine Review: Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina by Carole Watterson Troxler - The North Carolina Historical Review Shuttle & Plow: A history of Alamance County, North Carolina - North Carolina Libraries Book captures Alamance's colorful past - News & Record Historical group offers program on Regulator Movement in Piedmont - The Chatham Record Historian to speak at anniversary of ‘Crossing of Dan’ - The Gazette-Virginian Probably more out there for those who want to do a deeper dive than I did.  I basically just snagged some of the first page stuff from ProQuest, Newspapers.com, and a Google News Search.  Silver seren C 03:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep , and continue to expand and improve along the lines presented by User:Silver seren 's excellent research.  If there are errors and omissions, the subject is welcome to point them out, along with sources for the correct information.  BD2412 T 04:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bearing in mind Professor Troxler's concerns, and the fact that this is a biography of a living person, I think that if kept, we should place the article under ECP. — S Marshall T / C 09:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I added more book reviews, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR .  Weak because of the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns, but I think there's still enough to get past that.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  Given that we don't appear to have the sourcing-based notability that could support a robust biography, I would be inclined to prioritize the article subject's interest in privacy over the rather minimal benefit of this article to the encyclopedia.  In today's Wikipedia culture, I think we all know exactly the kind of reception the article subject would receive if she attempted to raise any concerns about accuracy on the talk page (assuming anyone even noticed).  -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Our WP:BLPKINDNESS policy includes, " Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. " There are also several avenues available , including but not limited to the oversight process for serious problems , for a subject of an article who may have concerns about the content of an article.  In my own experience, editors responding to edit requests have been polite and helpful.  Educating a BLP subject about the various options available to seek assistance from volunteer editors may also be helpful for undermining the sales pitch from paid-editing scammers.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree.  What @ Beccaynr said.  Many editors such as the late User:DGG do go out of their way to help subjects and others who may have a conflict of interest, and this is an important message to get across.  Otherwise we are just allowing scammers to sabotage and win.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 17:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It would help if we knew what the errors and omissions mentioned in the nomination were.  Is the article outdated?  Does it fail to include publications that ought to be included?  The first source is a press release from Elon University that says, A native of LaGrange, Georgia, Troxler holds a doctorate in history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  I would expect this kind of source to be accurate for basic biographical details.  Our article currently says born in LaGrange, Georgia ; I suppose "native of" and "born in" might not be interchangeable, if a person was actually born in a hospital the next town over or something like that.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suspect the scammer has some sort of information the subject of the article would not want known to the public, otherwise, why bother?  No fixed opinion about the notability, ECP seems to be a good idea after this discussion wraps up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 08:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment much as I sympathise with her, if she's suffered aggressive behaviour from a bunch of scammers intent on telling her that the WP article about her could be a liability, I don't think we can just delete it.  She does appear to be notable as an author.  If she is in communication with anyone, I think we should remove any information she feels is inaccurate provided it's either unimportant to the article, unsupported by sources, or contradicted by other sources.  Extended protection is then probably a good idea.  At the moment I'm at a loss to see what the problem with the article could be, but I cannot see all sources as some are not available in areas with GDPR.  Elemimele ( talk ) 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She's possibly notable, but NPROF always had odd notability guidelines to me, and has specifically requested for the article to be removed.  Since she's not "slam dunk" notable, I have no problem with granting the request.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete based on these points: This has been a problematic article subject to error and fraud.  That fraudster may even try to add errors just to up the pressure on Dr. Troxler.  We have a special duty of care for the subjects of BLPs.  WP:BLP is a policy.  Our notability guidelines are just that - guidelines.  Consensus so far seems to be "weak keep", not "keep".  Ultimately, "weak keep" = "keep" nevertheless, it indicates this is a borderline case.  The subject has asked we delete this article The subject didn't create the article.  In this borderline BLP cases, the combined weight of these arguments compel deletion in spite of possible notability.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Without the subject's specific feedback about what was wrong, it's impossible to know whether the issues have now been resolved.  (The article has changed since the initial complaint, for the better.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:56, 27 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus