Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Cook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 6 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 18:50, 6 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Faith Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no secondary source coverage of Ms. Cook that I can find. All of the hits are listings of books that she has written at booksellers, but there is no coverage of the author outside of the normal author's bio that gets printed on the dust jacket. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a fairly well known minor author with a number of primary and secondary sources to establish notability. scope_creep (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Gigs (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Searches for the subject's name along with her supposedly best-known books and with the word "hymn" don't seem to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources:
- I would expect to be able to find such sources online for any notable author published in English in the current millennium. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dude, Google does not make for independent reliable sources. Did you take the time to search for the other half dozen books she has written, which also help establish notability. scope_creep (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us any independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of those books? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The quantity of books a person writes is not relevant. All of the books are obscure as the author; there's little coverage out there of the author or her books, neither meet the WP:NBOOK guidelines. A person could churn out a hundred books and still not be notable by Wikipedia standards; productivity does not reflect notability. --res Laozi speak 05:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Refs lacking to support notability per WP:BIO. Writing of any number of obscure works does not demonstrate notability. Reliable and independent secondary sources are requireed. Edison (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2010 (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.